Hoye v. City of Oakland

Filing 173

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 163 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER B. HOYE, II, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF OAKLAND, Defendant. /

No. CV 07-06411 CRB ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Application for Injunction Pending Appeal, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 62(c). Plaintiff seeks to enjoin enforcement of Oakland Municipal Code § 8.50.010 ("the Ordinance") pending appeal. Under Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987), the Court is to consider four factors in ruling on such an application: "(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." The Court agrees that "[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). However, granting an injunction may risk injury to patients who seek access to Oakland's reproductive healthcare facilities­ access which the Ordinance aims to protect. In addition, the public interest lies in balancing the right to free speech and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

expression with the right to access reproductive healthcare; granting an injunction would skew that balance. Most importantly, the Court finds, as articulated in its twenty-five page Order granting summary judgment for Defendant, that Plaintiff has failed to make a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff's Application has not convinced the Court otherwise. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Application is DENIED. The hearing currently scheduled for October 9, 2009 is hereby VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 30, 2009

CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\CRBALL\2007\6411\orderrestay.wpd

2