Whether the Fourth Amendment permits a police officer to deploy a canine to apprehend a suspect and, if deployment is justified, whether the duration of the canine's bite constitutes excessive force subject to qualified immunity analysis

No question identified. : Pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f), Defendant Officer Mike Miller respectfully requests an emergency stay of trial proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision of his Writ of Certiorari. I. BACKGROUND United States District Court In September 2020, Dillon Rock initiated his § 1983 action in the United States District Court, District of Arizona, Case No. 2:20-cv-01837DWL. Dillon Rock alleged that Officer Miller violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against the use of excessive force by, inter alia, allowing a canine to continue biting him for too long. On September 9, 2022, after the close of discovery, Officer Miller moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. On July 3, 2028, the Court issued an order concluding that Officer Miller was not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Rock duration of bite claim. However, the Court concluded that Officer Miller was entitled to qualified immunity as to the decision to deploy his canine to locate, bite and apprehend Rock. On July 17, 2023, Officer Miller filed a notice of appeal of the order denying his request for qualified immunity as to the duration of bite claim. The District Court granted Officer Miller’s request to stay the proceedings as to that claim. Interlocutory Appeal On August 14, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued its memorandum decision affirming the July 2023 summary judgment order. On August 28, 2024, Officer Miller filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and on September 26, 2024, that petition was denied. Miller filed his timely Petition for Writ of Certiorari thereafter. Post-Remand Proceedings On November 15, 2024, Officer Miller filed in District Court a pending motion for stay, which was denied, with trial later set for May 12, 2025. The Decision to Seek Relief from the U.S. Supreme Court On April 29, 2025, undersigned received the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation of the May 2, 2025 Conference on the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and the request for a formal Response from Rock by May 29, 2025, as well as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals record. With the ' Rock’s Response would have been due on March 28, 2025. Rock opted not to respond by that date. That the Supreme Court requested a response, albeit late, suggested to undersigned that the Petition for Writ was under serious consideration for grant as of April 29, 2025. 2 May 2, 2025 Conference pending, undersigned anticipated an Orders List by 9:30 a.m. on May 5, 2025 indicating whether the Petition was granted, or denied. Prior to May 2, 2025, undersigned spoke with Plaintiffs counsel who was inclined to stipulate to stay the district court trial if this Court granted the Petition for Writ. If denied, the trial would proceed. The May 5, 2025 Orders List, however, did not indicate a grant, or a denial, and Plaintiff's counsel did not agree to stipulate to a stay absent an affirmative grant of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. By the time all of this was known, and due to the time limitations with an impeding trial date of May 12, 2025, Officer Miller felt it would be most expedient to file this Motion to Stay directly with the Supreme Court, rather than the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as this Court has the authority for a single Justice to issue a stay of the sort requested here is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f), and is in the best position to evaluate whether the first element supporting a stay was met. Barnes v. E-Sys., Inc. Grp. Hosp. Med. & Surgical Ins. Plan, 501 U.S. 1301, 13802 (1991). Il. ARGUMENT Jury trial in this matter is set to begin next week on May 12, 2025 in the district court. On December 26, 2024, Officer Mike Miller filed his Petition for Writ of Certiorari, triggering a response date for Respondent Rock of March 28, 2025. No response was filed. On April 16, 2025, the Petition was distributed for conference to be held on May 2, 2025. On April 29, 2025, this Court requested a response with a due date of May 29,