Habeas Corpus Resource Center et al v. United States Department of Justice et al

Filing 36

ORDER EXTENDING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/15/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7

Case No.: C-134517-CW

HABEAS CORPUS RESOURCE CENTER AND
THE OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER FOR THE DISTRICT OF
ARIZONA,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER EXTENDING
TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER

vs.

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE AND ERIC H. HOLDER, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Defendants

12
13

On October 18, 2013, this Court issued a temporary

14

restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary

15

injunction should not issue, and enjoined Defendants during the

16

pendency of these proceedings from putting into effect the rule

17

entitled “Certification Process for State Capital Counsel

18

Systems,” published at 78 Fed. Reg. 58,160 (Sept. 23, 2013).

19

order was set to expire on November 1, 2013.

20

the parties submitted a stipulation for an extended briefing

21

schedule in which they agreed to extend the temporary restraining

22

order for an additional fourteen days.

23

Court granted the parties’ stipulation.

24

stipulation, the Court set the hearing for November 14, 2013 and

25

set the temporary restraining order to expire on November 15,

26

2013.

27
28

The

On October 23, 2013,

On October 25, 2013, the
Pursuant to the parties’

1

On November 14, 2013 the Court heard oral arguments on

2

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.

The Court hereby

3

extends the temporary restraining order while the preliminary

4

injunction order is prepared.

5

439, 441 (1st Cir. 1973)(“Of course, as long as the hearing on the

6

preliminary injunction is held expeditiously within the

7

appropriate time frame, the district court should be able to

8

extend the restraining order while it prepares its decision.”);

9

SEC v. Unifund Sal, 910 F.2d 1028, 1034 (2d Cir. 1990)(district

See State of Me. v. Fri, 483 F.2d

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

court is not prevented from continuing temporary restraining order

11

while reserving decision on motion for preliminary injunction).

12

Neither party has addressed the issue of what bond should be

13

required pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65(c).

14

Courts have discretion to dispense with the security requirement

15

in circumstances where requiring security would effectively deny

16

access to judicial review.

17

Reg'l Planning Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, 1325 (9th Cir. 1985)

18

(finding proper the district court's exercise of discretion in

19

allowing environmental group to proceed without posting a bond),

20

amended on other grounds, 775 F.2d 998 (9th Cir. 1985); Barahona–

21

Gomez, 167 F.3d at 1237 (determining $1,000 bond in class action

22

not to be an abuse of discretion in light of the showing that “the

23

vast majority of aliens [affected by class action] were very

24

poor”).

25

public interest litigation.

26

Supp. 2d 1192, 1198 (D. Or. 2012).

27

requires no bond.

See Cal. ex rel. Van De Kamp v. Tahoe

Courts also waive bonds to prevent a chilling effect on
Landwatch v. Connaughton, 905 F.

28
2

Accordingly, the Court

1

Defendants remain enjoined from effecting the rule entitled

2

“Certification Process for State Capital Counsel Systems,”

3

published at 78 Fed. Reg. 58,160 (Sept. 23, 2013), until this

4

order is lifted or replaced with a preliminary injunction.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: 11/15/2013
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3