United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Lynn Winmill, U.S., District Court Judge
the Court is Defendants' Joint Motion to Stay Order [Dkt.
149] Pending Appeal. Dkt. 156. For the reasons set forth
below, Defendants' motion is denied.
Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and
Order in this case after a three-day evidentiary hearing.
Dkt. 149. During that hearing, Ms. Adree Edmo established
that she was entitled to gender confirmation surgery by June
13, 2019. The Court will not repeat all the factual and legal
conclusions that led to its decision, but will highlight the
following portion of the Court's order:
The risks of not providing gender confirmation surgery to Ms.
Edmo include surgical self-treatment, emotional
decompensation, and risk of suicide given her high degree of
suicide ideation. Tr. 80:24:81:8, 264:13-22. If she is not
provided with surgery, Ms. Edmo has indicated that she will
try self-surgery again to deal with her extreme episodes of
gender dysphoria. Tr. 199:24-200:5. Given that Ms. Edmo
made increasing progress on her first two self-surgery
attempts, it is likely that Ms. Edmo will be successful if
she attempts self-surgery again. Tr. 264:13-22.
Edmo v. Idaho Dep't of Correction, No.
1:17-CV-00151-BLW, 2018 WL 6571203, at *12 (D. Idaho Dec. 13,
2018) (emphasis added).
a stay is “an exercise of judicial discretion”
that is “dependent upon the circumstances of the
particular case.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S.
418, 433, (2009). The Supreme Court suggested in Hilton
v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) that the trial
court, in exercising its discretion, should consider four
factors: “(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.”
Ninth Circuit has suggested that the Hilton factors
should be applied using a “sliding scale”
approach in which a stronger showing of one element may
offset a weaker showing of another. Peck Ormsby Const.
Co. v. City of Rigby, No. CIV. 1:10-545 WBS, 2012 WL
914915, at *3 (D. Idaho Mar. 15, 2012). The moving party
bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an
exercise of the court's discretion and must show at least
a minimum threshold for each factor. Nken, 556 U.S.
at 434. However, the “first two factors ... are the
most critical.” Id.
in seeking a stay, rehash the arguments they presented during
the three-day evidentiary hearing in this case. The Court was
unpersuaded by the arguments then, and remains so now.
Applying the Hilton factors to the findings of fact
contained in the Court's prior decision, Defendants have
failed to carry their burden to show that a stay is
there is no certainty as to how this case will be viewed on
appeal, the Court is firmly convinced that its decision is
supported by the facts and law presented during the hearing.
I must, therefore conclude that the Defendants have not made
a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on appeal.
Court is not persuaded that the Defendants will be
irreparably injured absent a stay. Indeed, it is difficult to
see how providing medical treatment to an ...