United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER STAYING THE COURT'S MARCH 10, 2014 ORDER DISMISSING THE INDICTMENT 
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.
After this Court dismissed the indictment due to outrageous government conduct and denied partial reconsideration of the Order, the Government filed this Ex Parte Application to stay the dismissal Order pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Government requests that the Court return the parties to the pre-dismissal status quo and issue a bench warrant for Dunlap's arrest. But the Court finds that the Government has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or that it will suffer irreparable harm-both of which are prerequisites to this Court exercising its discretion to stay the dismissal Order. Rather, the Court finds that Defendant Antuan Duane Dunlap's strong liberty interest outweighs any harm the Government might suffer and accordingly DENIES the Application. (ECF No. 134.)
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Finding that the Government had engaged in outrageous government conduct stemming from its fictitious stash-house ruse, the Court dismissed the indictment in this multidefendant case on March 10, 2014. (ECF No. 112.) Since there is no longer an operative charging document holding Dunlap in custody, the Court ordered that the United States Marshal's Service release him forthwith.
The Government immediately filed a Notice of Appeal and moved to have the Court reconsider its release Order. (ECF Nos. 113, 114.) The Court denied that Motion, concluding that since Dunlap was no longer "a person charged with an offense" as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(a), the pretrial detentions provisions were no longer applicable.
On March 18, 2014, Defendant Joseph Cornell Whitfield moved to withdraw his guilty plea. (ECF No. 123.) The Court granted Whitfield's request to advance the hearing on that Motion. (ECF No. 128.) The Government timely opposed.
On March 28, 2014, the Government filed this Ex Parte Application seeking to stay the Court's Order Dismissing the Indictment. (ECF No. 134.) Dunlap promptly opposed. That Ex Parte Application is now before the Court for decision.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
The United States Supreme Court has held that an appellant is not entitled to a stay of an order pending appeal as a matter of right. Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926). Rather, it is matter of judicial discretion. Id. ; see also Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009).
In determining whether to stay an order, a court must 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." Id. at 434 (internal quotation marks omitted). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of establishing that the particular circumstances of its case justifies the court exercising its favorable discretion. Id. at 433-34.
Despite the Government's arguments to the contrary, none of the factors expounded by the Supreme Court weigh in favor of staying the Court's Order Dismissing the ...