FUQUA et al v. Pridgen et al

Filing 90

ORDER denying 34 Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction; granting 88 Motion to Dismiss Party Defendant Haralson; granting 89 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer to Complaint.Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 9/30/13 (wks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
BEVERLY FUQUA et al,

:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
JOHN PRIDGEN et al,
:
:
Defendants.
:
___________________________ _:

Case No.: 1:12-cv-93 (WLS)

ORDER
Before the Court are the Parties’ Consent Motion to Dismiss Defendant Haralson
(Doc. 88) and the Defendant Judges’ Third Consent Motion to Extend the Time for
Defendant Judges’ Answer to the Complaint (Doc. 89). In the first motion, all of the
Parties move to voluntarily dismiss Defendant Haralson under Rule 41(a)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the second motion, the defendant judges request an
extension of time to October 30, 2013 to answer the complaint.
The Parties’ motion to dismiss Defendant Haralson is GRANTED. Haralson is
hereby dismissed from this action, with prejudice, in accordance with the terms reached
in the settlement agreement.
Defendant Judges’ motion is also GRANTED. But because of the importance of
the issues in this case and the length of time the case has been pending, the Court will
not grant any further extension to answer the complaint, except to avoid a manifest
injustice arising from matters not reasonably avoidable by or foreseeable to the moving
party.

1

Relatedly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction
remains pending on the docket.

In their motion, Plaintiffs request an injunction

enjoining defendants from excluding members of the public from criminal court
proceedings in Ben Hill and Crisp County. Plaintiffs also urge the Court to consolidate
their request for a preliminary injunction with their request for a permanent injunction.
Plaintiffs request the Court do so without an evidentiary hearing.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 provides that “[b]efore or after beginning the
hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the court may advance the trial on the
merits and consolidate it with the hearing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). Although there is
ample authority permitting a district court to issue a preliminary injunction without an
evidentiary hearing, McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1311–13 (11th Cir.
1998), the court’s authority to issue a permanent injunction without a hearing is more
questionable, see Budlong v. Graham, 488 F. Supp. 2d 1245, 1249–50 (N.D. Ga. 2006).
Moreover, Plaintiffs seek only declaratory relief against the defendant judges.
(Doc. 24 at 3.) To the extent Plaintiffs view their motion as a “motion for a declaratory
judgment,” the Court notes that such a vehicle would be improper under the Federal
Rules because “[a] party may not make a motion for declaratory relief, but rather, the
party must bring an action for a declaratory judgment.” Thomas v. Blue Cross & Blue
Shield Ass’n, 594 F.3d 823, 830 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kam-Ko Bio-Pharm Trading
Co., Ltd.- Australasia v. Mayne Pharma (USA), Inc., 560 F.3d 935, 943 (9th Cir.
2009)). Nevertheless, under Federal Rule 57, “[t]he court may order a speedy hearing of
a declaratory judgment action.” Fed. Civ. P. 57.
For those reasons, the Court hereby finds it necessary to notice the remaining
Parties it intends to advance the request for injunctive and declaratory relief to an

2

expedited trial on the merits. By Wednesday, October 30, 2013, all remaining
parties to this case shall confer and submit to the Court a joint proposed scheduling
order setting forth dates within three months of October 30 for trial and any remaining
issues. The joint proposed order shall also set forth the Parties’ positions regarding the
format of the trial and the interplay between any remaining requests for legal and
equitable relief. The pending motion for preliminary relief is DENIED without
prejudice in the sense that the Court intends to grant a final judgment at the conclusion
of the trial.
SO ORDERED, this

30th day of September 2013.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
THE HONORABLE W. LOUIS SANDS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3