Nos. 14-1822, 14-1888, 14-1899, 14-2006, 14-2012 and 14-2023Page 24.
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS JOHN CHISHOLM, BRUCE LANDGRAFAND DAVID ROBLES' MOTION FOR STAY OF DISTRICT COURTPROCEEDINGS,
filed on May 15, 2014, by counsel for the appellants JohnChisholm, Bruce Landgraf and David Robles.5.
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' STAY MOTIONS ANDCROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE OF DENIAL OFDEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS,
filed on May 28, 2014, by counselfor the appellees.
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT DEAN NICKEL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OFMOTION FOR STAY AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES'CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE,
filed on June 4, 2014, by counsel for the appellant Dean Nickels.7.
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS JOHN CHISHOLM, BRUCE LANDGRAF,AND DAVID ROBLES' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTIONFOR STAY OF DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS,
filed on June 4, 2014, by counsel for the appellants John Chisholm, Bruce Landgraf and DavidRobles.8.
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT FRANCIS SCHMITZ'S RESPONSE TOPLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARYAFFIRMANCE AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY,
filedon June 4, 2014, by counsel for the appellant Francis D. Schmitz.After our order of May 7, 2014, the district court concluded that the appeals are frivolous.Under
Apostol v. Gallion
, 870 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. 1989), that clears the way for furtherproceedings in the district court, subject to the partial stay that our order of May 7 imposedwhile the appeals remain under advisement.This court has set a briefing schedule, but most of the litigants have asked for other relief,including further stays, an order dismissing some or all of the appeals, or summaryaffirmance. We do not attempt to address each of these motions individually but insteadcover the ground as follows.1. Appeal Nos. 14-2006, 14-2012, and 14-2023 challenge the district court’s authority to issuea preliminary injunction, and to conduct proceedings concerning the request for permanentinjunctive relief. They are frivolous to the extent they present this topic. Defendants’invocation of immunity does not affect litigation under
Ex parte Young
, 209 U.S. 123 (1908),that seeks prospective relief to compel compliance with federal law (including theConstitution). The district court therefore had authority, notwithstanding the appeals, toissue an injunction. - over -
Case: 14-1822 Document: 43 Filed: 06/09/2014 Pages: 3