Jensen et al v. Utah County et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
BRIDGER LEE JENSEN, SINGULARISM,
and PSYCHE HEALING AND BRIDGING,
LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UTAH COUNTY, PROVO CITY, JEFFREY
GRAY, TROY BEEBE, BRIAN WOLKEN,
JACKSON JULIAN, and JOHN DOES 1–4,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
Case No. 2:24-cv-00887-JNP-CMR
Chief District Judge Jill N. Parrish
Defendants request a stay of further proceedings pending the resolution of Defendants’
appeal of the court’s August 4, 2025 Order. ECF No. 112. The court GRANTS the motion for stay.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are members and affiliates of Singularism, a religious tradition that uses
psilocybin (a Schedule I controlled substance) as a sacrament to encounter the Divine. ECF No.
56 at 1. When Plaintiff Bridger Lee Jensen founded Singularism in November 2023, he notified
Utah County and Provo City about Singularism’s religious use of the entheogen and invited
officials to approach him with any questions about the religion. Id. About a year later in November
2024, Provo City officers executed a search warrant at Singularism’s center and seized its stock of
psilocybin mushrooms along with its sacred scripture. Id. at 2. The government also threatened
criminal charges against Jensen. Id.
Plaintiffs then filed suit in state court against Utah County, Provo City, and several
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JNP-CMR Document 122 Filed 12/05/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 9

2
government officials, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to require
return of the mushrooms and scripture and seeking to enjoin any threatened criminal prosecution.
Id. Defendants removed the case to federal court on November 27. Id. The TRO motion, filed
again in this court, invoked the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Free Exercise
Clause of the Utah Constitution, and the Utah Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). Id.
On December 13, 2024, the court held an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a
temporary restraining order. Id. At the hearing, Plaintiffs presented the testimony of several
witnesses to establish the sincerity of their religion. Id. The court found the witnesses credible and
ruled that Plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on their claim under the Utah RFRA. Id.
Accordingly, on December 16, the court entered a limited temporary restraining order requiring
Defendants to return the psylocibin mushrooms and records as soon as practicable. ECF No. 24.
On December 18, the State of Utah, through the Utah County Attorney’s Office and Defendant
Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Gray, then initiated a criminal action against Mr. Jensen in state
court. ECF No. 92 at 15.
Shortly after the government filed criminal charges against Mr. Jensen, Plaintiffs moved
for an anti-suit injunction against the state-court prosecution, and Defendants moved to dismiss
Plaintiffs’ claims. Id. at 16. The motion to dismiss argued that (1) Plaintiffs’ First Amendment
claim failed because the Utah Controlled Substances Act is neutral and generally applicable; and
(2) Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim failed because of Defendants’ alleged absolute immunity.
ECF No. 40 at 5, 10. It further argued that the court should decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims. Id. at 12. In response to the motion for an anti-suit injunction,
Defendants argued that the court was precluded from enjoining the state prosecution due to
Younger abstention and because injunctive relief was inappropriate under the federal Anti-
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JNP-CMR Document 122 Filed 12/05/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 9

3
Injunction Act. ECF No. 50 at 5, 9.
The court deferred on ruling on these two motions until the Utah Attorney General had an
opportunity to present evidence or argument on the constitutional questions underlying the
motions. ECF No. 92 at 3. On February 20, 2025, the court preliminarily enjoined Defendants
from treating Plaintiffs’ religious use of psilocybin as unlawful under the Utah Controlled
Substances Act. Id.
On April 11, 2025, the Attorney General notified the court that he joined in and adopted
the arguments made in Defendants’ briefing on their motion to dismiss. ECF No. 102. On August
4, 2025, the court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted Plaintiffs’ motion for anti-
suit injunction, ordering Defendants to cease further proceedings in the state prosecution. Id. at 32.
Defendants subsequently appealed the court’s August 4 Order to the Tenth Circuit. ECF No. 105.
On October 7, Defendants moved to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the appeal. ECF
No. 112. Specifically, Defendants request a stay of discovery and motion practice, rather than a
stay of any prior order. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. ECF No. 115.
LEGAL STANDARD
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). When considering a
motion for stay, a court must “balanc[e] the competing interests on both sides.” Commodity
Futures Trading Comm'n v. Chilcott Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 713 F.2d 1477, 1484 (10th Cir. 1983).
The movant must “make a strong showing of necessity” or “a clear case of hardship or inequity.”
Id. (citing, with respect to the latter, Landis, 299 U.S. at 255); see also Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S.
418, 433 (2009) (“A stay is not a matter of right.”).
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JNP-CMR Document 122 Filed 12/05/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 9

4
Defendants argue that in considering the motion to stay, the court should weigh the
following factors: “(1) whether a stay would promote judicial economy; (2) whether a stay would
avoid confusion and inconsistent results; and (3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice the parties
or create undue hardship.” Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Fin. Asset Mgmt., Inc., No.
223CV00382HCNJCB, 2024 WL 1330010, at *1 (D. Utah Mar. 28, 2024) (quoting Fed. Trade
Comm'n v. Nudge, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00867-DBB-DAO, 2021 WL 254110, at *2 (D. Utah Jan. 26,
2021)). While this three-part test first arose in Meadows Indem. Co. v. Baccala & Shoop Ins. Servs.,
Inc., 760 F. Supp. 1036, 1045 (E.D.N.Y. 1991), it has been closely associated with the Supreme
Court’s explication of a district court’s inherent power to stay a case outlined in Landis v. North
American 	Company. 	299 	U.S. 	at 	254; 	see, 	e.g., 	Consumer 	Fin. 	Prot. 	Bureau, 	No.
223CV00382HCNJCB, 2024 WL 1330010, at *1; TravelPass Grp., LLC v. Benjamin & Bros.,
LLC, No. 217CV00247JNPPMW, 2017 WL 2841221, at *2 (D. Utah July 3, 2017). Accordingly,
the court refers to this three-factor standard as the “inherent power” standard.0F
1
In contrast, Plaintiffs argue that when a party moves for a stay pending appeal involving
the same parties, the court must weigh four factors as expressed by the Supreme Court in Nken v.
1 Other courts have focused simply on the requirement described in Landis that the movant must
show “a clear case of hardship or inequity” to receive a stay. Landis, 299 U.S. at 255; see, e.g.,
Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co., Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 987 (10th Cir. 2000) (“When
applying for a stay, a party must demonstrate ‘a clear case of hardship or inequity’ if ‘even a fair
possibility’ exists that the stay would damage another party.”); Creative Consumer Concepts, Inc.
v. Kreisler, 563 F.3d 1070, 1080 (10th Cir. 2009) (same); United States ex rel. Brooks v. Stevens-
Henager Coll., Inc., No. 215CV00119JNPEJF, 2017 WL 5241002, at *1 (D. Utah June 23, 2017)
(denying a motion to stay discovery pending a motion for reconsideration using the same
standard); Fucci v. Bowser, No. 2:20-CV-00004, 2022 WL 1773015, at *2 (D. Utah June 1, 2022)
(granting a stay of a case pending the resolution of another Tenth Circuit appeal using the same
standard). The court here incorporates that heavy burden when balancing the relevant factors.
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JNP-CMR Document 122 Filed 12/05/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 9

5
Holder (the “Nken standard”): “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he
is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a
stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the
proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009).
Courts in this circuit, and indeed, even in this district, have taken varying approaches when
addressing motions to stay.1F
2 But it is clear that, within this district, the “traditional stay factors” as
expressed in the Nken standard generally apply to cases in which the movant is attempting to stay
an order—or, at minimum, the effect of an order—that is being appealed. See Nken, 556 U.S. at
426; 	see, 	e.g., 	Stichting 	Mayflower 	Mountain 	Fonds 	v. 	City 	of 	Park 	City 	Utah, 	No.
2:04CV925DAK, 2009 WL 1107639, at *1 (D. Utah Apr. 23, 2009) (denying a stay of proceedings
2 Some courts, for example, have considered a set of five factors outlined by String Cheese
Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc. No. 1:02-CV-01934-LTB-PA, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D.
Colo. Mar. 30, 2006) (weighing “(1) plaintiff’s interests in proceeding expeditiously with the civil
action and the potential prejudice to plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendants; (3) the
convenience to the court; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the
public interest”); see, e.g., Martin v. SGT Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00289, 2019 WL 12043488, at *1 (D.
Utah Aug. 21, 2019) (reviewing a motion to stay “discovery, deadlines, and other proceedings”
pending a motion to dismiss using the String Cheese factors).
Further, a distinct standard generally applies to patent cases pending resolution of inter
partes review. White Knuckle LP, LLC v. Elec. Arts Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00036-DN-BCW, 2016
WL 3959689, at *2 (D. Utah July 20, 2016) (weighing “(1) whether granting a stay would likely
simplify the issues before the court; (2) the stage of the litigation; and (3) a balancing of prejudice
to the parties”); C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Med. Components, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-032-RJS-EJF, 2020 WL
10352265, at *2 (D. Utah Feb. 28, 2020) (stating “courts typically look to those factors only when
deciding whether to stay litigation pending USPTO inter partes reexamination proceedings”); see
also Ampersand Ave., LLC v. Vanilla Bay, Inc., No. 119CV00068DAKCMR, 2020 WL 6290479,
at *1 (D. Utah Oct. 27, 2020) (applying the same standard to a motion for stay pending final
resolution of a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding); Menchacha-Estrada v. Synchrony
Bank, No. 2:17CV831DAK, 2017 WL 4990561 (D. Utah Oct. 30, 2017) (applying the same
standard to a motion for stay pending a consolidated appeal to the D.C. Circuit).
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JNP-CMR Document 122 Filed 12/05/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 9

6
pending an appeal of a motion to clarify an order regarding discovery); KSTU, LLC v. Aereo, Inc.,
No. 14-4020, 2014 WL 1687749, at *1 (10th Cir. Mar. 7, 2014) (unpublished) (considering a
motion to stay a preliminary injunction pending its appeal); Wyoming v. United States Dep't of
Interior, No. 18-8027, 2018 WL 2727031, at *1 (10th Cir. June 4, 2018) (unpublished)
(considering a motion for a stay of an order pending its appeal); Gardner v. Long, No. 2:18-CV-
00509-RJS, 2021 WL 5911350, *1–2 (D. Utah Dec. 2, 2021) (considering a stay of a motion for
attorneys’ fees pending an appeal of a final judgment); Jensen v. Utah Cnty., No. 2:24-CV-00887-
JNP-CMR, 2025 WL 42150, at *1–2 (D. Utah Jan. 7, 2025) (considering a motion to stay a portion
of a TRO pending resolution of a motion for preliminary injunction).
In contrast, courts in this district look to the “inherent power” standard when issuing stay
orders to preserve judicial economy and avoid inconsistent results. See, e.g., Sparks v. Saxon Invs.,
LLC, No. 2:09CV151DAK, 2009 WL 2886029, at *4–5 (D. Utah Sept. 3, 2009) (considering a
motion to stay pending arbitration); TravelPass Grp., LLC, No. 217CV00247JNPPMW, 2017 WL
2841221, at *2 (same); Wakaya Perfection, LLC v. Youngevity Int'l, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00315-DN,
2019 WL 977916, *1–2 (D. Utah Feb. 28, 2019) (staying a case pending the outcome of a parallel
state litigation); Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, No. 223CV00382HCNJCB, 2024 WL 1330010, at
*1 (staying a case pending the outcome of a case before the Supreme Court).
Indeed, courts have used the “inherent power” standard in contexts that closely resemble
that of the instant case—a motion for stay of proceedings and discovery pending an appeal of a
prior order. See, e.g., Dirtt Env't Sols., Inc. v. Henderson, No. 1:19-CV-144 DBB DBP, 2021 WL
3726604, *1–2 (D. Utah Aug. 23, 2021). The court accordingly reviews the current motion to stay
under the “inherent power” standard.
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JNP-CMR Document 122 Filed 12/05/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 9

7
ANALYSIS
The court considers whether the requested stay would promote judicial economy, would
avoid confusion and inconsistent result, and would unduly prejudice the parties or create undue
hardship. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, No. 223CV00382HCNJCB, 2024 WL 1330010, at *1. The
court finds that these factors weigh in favor of a stay.
First, 	“[t]he factor 	of 	judicial 	economy 	is 	‘measured 	in 	terms 	of 	simplifying 	or
complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.’”
Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp. v. Sw. Clubs, Inc., No. 12-01299 MCA/LAM, 2015 WL 11117308, at
*3 (D.N.M. Mar. 31, 2015) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.3d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)).
Defendants argue that the appeal will resolve threshold issues that will significantly impact “the
trajectory and propriety of discovery and proceedings in this matter.” ECF No. 112 at 2.
The first issue Defendants raise on appeal is this court’s holding that Defendants waived
any Younger abstention defense by removing the case from state court to federal court. See ECF
No. 115-1 at 7. The second issue Defendants raise is the court’s finding that they brought the
prosecution in bad faith and that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm from the prosecution. Id. If
either of those issues are reversed on appeal, Defendants argue that either state court will be the
likely forum for the case or the scope of discovery will be altered. ECF No. 112 at 2. The final
issue Defendants raise is their alleged immunity from Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment search and
seizure claims. ECF No. 115-1 at 7. They argue that allowing discovery and litigation to continue
pending a determination of immunity on appeal would “eviscerate the very purpose and benefit”
of said immunity. ECF No. 112 at 2.
Plaintiffs argue that proceeding with discovery would not be premature because all of the
discovery subjects that Plaintiffs have identified are also relevant to claims that are not being
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JNP-CMR Document 122 Filed 12/05/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 7 of 9

8
appealed. ECF No. 115 at 10. But at this stage it is not clear that the scope of discovery would be
unchanged regardless of the outcome of the appeal. Rather, it appears clearly possible that the
resolution of the appealed issues will affect discovery to at least some degree. If, for example, the
Tenth Circuit’s ruling leads to the case being remanded to state court, discovery will proceed based
on that forum’s procedural rules. Or, if the Tenth Circuit reverses the court’s ruling on Defendants’
immunity claim, the scope of discovery will likely change, even if there some level of overlap
between the discovery subjects relevant to the other claims.
Thus, the court finds that a stay would promote judicial economy. Dirtt Env't Sols., Inc. v.
Henderson, No. 1:19-CV-144 DBB DBP, 2021 WL 3726604, at *2 (D. Utah Aug. 23, 2021)
(“Avoiding costly and duplicative piecemeal litigation is a hallmark of judicial economy and thus
supports a stay.”). Indeed, both parties would benefit from avoiding discovery that might prove to
be unnecessary and premature. Similarly, the court finds that a stay would avoid any motion
practice and discovery that might ultimately be inconsistent with the Tenth Circuit order.
The stay would also not unduly prejudice Plaintiffs. The motion would not stay any existing
order issued by the court, including the injunction currently in effect. ECF No. 92. Plaintiffs
highlight the risk of witness memories fading or evidence being lost, but the court finds that any
potential prejudice from a stay would be mitigated by the relatively short expected duration of the
stay pending only the Tenth Circuit’s ruling. In addition, several witnesses have already provided
relevant testimony, and parties have a duty to preserve evidence. Considering all of the factors, the
court finds a stay to be warranted.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the above reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to stay. All further
proceedings and discovery are stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ appeal of the August 4
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JNP-CMR Document 122 Filed 12/05/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 8 of 9

9
Order before the Tenth Circuit.
Signed December 4, 2025.
BY THE COURT
______________________________
Jill N. Parrish
United States Chief District Judge
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JNP-CMR Document 122 Filed 12/05/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 9 of 9