Barnett v. United States Air Force et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MAJOR SEAN BARNETT,
Plaintiff, 	: 	Case No. 3:25-cv-228
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
- 	vs 	- 	Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, et al.,
Defendants. 	:
DECISION AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion For Relief From General Order And To
Lift Abeyance As To This Case (ECF No. 45). Plaintiff seeks relief from S.D. Ohio General Order
25-04 entered by Chief Judge Morrison October 1, 2025, which recites:
This matter is before the Court due to the lapse of congressional
appropriations 	funding 	the 	federal 	government, 	including 	the
Department of Justice and the United States Attorney's Office for
the Southern District of Ohio. Absent an appropriation, the United
States represents that certain Department of Justice attorneys and
employees of the federal government are prohibited from working,
even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances,
including "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the
protection of property. " 31 U. S.C. § 1342. Therefore, the lapse in
appropriations requires a reduction in the workforce of the United
States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Ohio and other
federal agencies, particularly with respect to prosecution and
defense of civil cases.
Case: 3:25-cv-00228-TMR-MRM Doc #: 47 Filed: 10/20/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
The Court, in response, and with the intent to avoid any default or
prejudice to the United States or other civil litigants occasioned by
the lapse in funding, sua sponte enters this General Order.
Based on these findings, the Court ordered:
[E]ffective October 1, 2025, that all civil litigation involving as a
party the United States of America, its agencies, its officers or
employees (whether in their individual or official capacity and
whether current or former employees), and/or any other party
represented by the Department of Justice or the United States
Attorney's Office is immediately suspended, postponed and held in
abeyance continuing for a period of twenty-eight (28) days from
October 1, 2025.
(Available on the Court’s website at www.ohsd.uscourts.gov.)
The terms of the General Order do not grant discretion to judges of this Court to grant
exceptions. As authority for this Court to grant relief from the General Order, Plaintiff relies on
Landis v. North American Co, 299 U. S. 248, 254-55 (1936), and Ohio Env't Council v. U. S. Dist.
Ct., 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1977). 	Each decision addresses a particular stay entered in an
individual case; neither addresses a stay entered in circumstances such as now prevail where the
Congress of the United States has failed in one of its core responsibilities, to wit, to fund federal
government operations.
Since the Department of Justice will not pay Assistant United States Attorneys to work on
this case, commanding them to do so would force them to provide their services pro bono publico.
Doing so to compel them to perform ordinary duties in civil litigation would violate their
constitutional rights. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, S.D. Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989).
Case: 3:25-cv-00228-TMR-MRM Doc #: 47 Filed: 10/20/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
Plaintiff has cited no authority for the proposition that the Constitution of the United States
entitles him to have matters in this case decided before the end of October, which is the duration
of the stay.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate is DENIED.
October 20, 2025.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00228-TMR-MRM Doc #: 47 Filed: 10/20/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>