Herships v. Cantil-Sakauye et al

Filing 56

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 16 Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2017)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

HOWARD HERSHIPS,
Plaintiff,

9
vs.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, ET AL.,
Defendants.

12

CASE NO. 17-cv-00473-YGR
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
EXPEDITE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECTION
1657 AND TO EMPANEL A THREE-JUDGE
COURT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECTION
2284
Re: Dkt. No. 16

13

Plaintiff brings this action against defendants Tani Cantil-Sakauye in her capacity as the

14

Director of the California Judicial Council and Jean Shiomoto in her capacity as the Director of

15

the California Department of Motor Vehicles, alleging the violation of his civil rights in

16

connection with the suspension of his driver’s license. (Dkt. No. 17, “FAC.”)

17

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to expedite his action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

18

section 1657 and to empanel a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2284. Having

19

considered the pleadings and the papers submitted, and for the reasons set forth more fully below,

20

the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion.1

21

I.

MOTION TO EXPEDITE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1657

22

Section 1657 provides thus: “[E]ach court of the United States shall determine the order in

23

which civil actions are heard and determined, except that the court shall expedite the consideration

24

of any action brought under chapter 153 or section 1826 of this title, any action for temporary or

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff also requests that the Court set a hearing for a temporary restraining order. The
Court has already twice denied plaintiff’s motions for the same, and no reason exists to reconsider
such decision at this time. Plaintiff further requested that all Rule 26 disclosures be completed by
March 15, 2017. The Court finds no reason to expedite disclosure and discovery obligations
beyond that required by law.

1

preliminary injunctive relief, or any other action if good cause therefor is shown. For purposes of

2

this subsection, ‘good cause’ is shown if a right under the Constitution of the United States or a

3

Federal Statute (including rights under section 552 of title 5) would be maintained in a factual

4

context that indicates that a request for expedited consideration has merit.” None of the situations

5

outlined in 28 U.S.C. section 1657 exists here: First, the instant action is not one brought under

6

chapter 153 or section 1826 of Title 28, but rather it is brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

7

Second, the Court has already twice denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order,

8

and no motion for temporary or preliminary injunctive relief is currently pending. Finally,

9

plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for expediting the current action.2
Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to expedite his action pursuant to 28

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

U.S.C. section 1657.

12

II.

13

MOTION TO EMPANEL THREE-JUDGE COURT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2284
Section 2284 provides thus: “A district court of three judges shall be convened when

14

otherwise required by Act of Congress, or when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality

15

of the apportionment of congressional districts or the apportionment of any statewide legislative

16

body.” Plaintiff argues that California Government Code sections 68085 and 77003 violate due

17

process because they create a “structural conflict of interest” by establishing a system in which

18

judicial officers of traffic courts rely on money “from finding the defendants guilty verdict [sic]

19

and imposing exorbitant penalty assessments[,] fines[,] and fee[s] to fund the court as well as pay

20

the salaries and benefits of every judicial officer of trial court.” (Dkt. No. 16 at 2.) Such,

21

however, does not fall within the narrow circumstances in which section 2284 requires the

22

empaneling of a three-judge court.

23
24

Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to empanel a three-judge court pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. section 2284.

25
26
27
28

2

The legislative history of section 1657 further provides examples of situations in which
the “good cause” standard could be met, namely, cases in which the failure to expedite would
result in mootness or deprive the relief requested of much of its value or result in extraordinary
hardship to a litigant or actions where the public interest in enforcement of the statute is
particularly strong. See H. Rep. No. 98-985 at 6 (1984).
2

1

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to expedite the instant

2
action and to empanel a three-judge court.
3
This Order terminates Docket Number 16.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: May 26, 2017
7

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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