Johnston v. Gutierrez

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Andrew J. Johnston,
Petitioner,
v.
B. Hudson, Warden,
Respondent.
No. CV-25-0164-TUC-SHR (EJM)
ORDER
On October 22, 2025, this Court issued its Order (Doc. 17) staying the instant case
pending resolution of Johnston v. Gutierrez, No. CV-24-00005-TUC-SHR. The stay
remains in effect.
On December 1, 2025, Petitioner filed a Motion for Expedited Summary Judgment
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (Doc. 18) and a Statement of Facts (Doc. 19). On December 8,
2025, Petitioner filed a Notice of Citation to Additional Authority (Doc 20) indicating
that he “discovered . . . Woolsey v. Washington, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174474 (Midd.
D. Ala. Sept. 8, 2025)[.]”
The stay in the instant case was enacted because final resolution of the Report and
Recommendation by the District Judge in Johnston v. Gutierrez, No. CV-24-00005-TUC-
SHR, may moot or otherwise resolve the issues raised here. Order 10/22/2025 (Doc. 17)
at 1. Once the stay is lifted, Respondent will file his response to Petitioner’s § 2241
Petition (Doc. 1) and Petitioner will have the opportunity to reply. See Order 8/19/2025
(Doc. 8) at 4.
A “stay” is defined as “[t]he postponement or halting of a proceeding[.]” Stay,
Case 4:25-cv-00164-SHR-EJM Document 21 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). Because this case is halted, Petitioner’s filings
are improper. Additionally, the Court has warned Petitioner that the filing of a separate
“Notice of Additional Authority must relate to binding authority on this Court, e.g., from
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of the United States. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11(b) (requiring filings to be “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous
argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new
law”).” Order 10/22/2025 (Doc. 17) at 3. If Petitioner believes Woolsey is an important
case for resolution of his Petition (Doc. 1), he will have to opportunity to cite to it in his
Reply.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following documents shall be
STRUCK from the record for the reasons stated herein:
1) Petitioner’s Motion for Expedited Summary Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P.
56 (Doc. 18);
2) Petitioner’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 19); and
3) Petitioner’s Notice of Citation to Additional Authority (Doc 20)
Dated this 11th day of December, 2025.
Case 4:25-cv-00164-SHR-EJM Document 21 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 2