Howard et al v. Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia Commission et al

Filing 42

ORDER that, subsequent to the denial without prejudice of Plaintiffs' request to depart from the full supersedeas bond requirement, the Plaintiffs' 38 Motion to Stay Enforcement of the Order and Judgment is granted conditioned upon Plain tiffs first posting a supersedeas bond, pursuant to Rule 62(d) and in accordance with Local Rule 67.1, in the amount of $15,975.00. Should Plaintiff wish to submit evidence as to why the Court should waive the supersedeas bond requirement, they are hereby ordered to do so within fourteen (14) days of this Order. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 12/23/2014. (jah)

F"tL-t:[]
rN rHE nNrrEDsrArESDrsrRrcr counr FoR rilEi jl:i,t[i!t'i-[iluRi
I ' ; 1 " "I , i l 'i I I i ] ,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT

"I

OF GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION
HENRY D. HOWARD, EARNEST G.
SMITH, GLORIA FRAZIER, THOMAS
WALKER, KENNETH MARTIN, MELV]N
IVEY, and ALBERT ROBTNSON,JR.,
p

ltf

nrr

v L L L r

zilr\ 23 Pllb,
DL.[
i-rL
Iit

*
*
*

t}F GA

*

ttc
I

*

V.

CV II4_091

C
AUGUSTA-RTCHMOND OUNTY,
GEORGfA, COMMISSION; DEKE S.
C O P E N H A V E R /i n h i s o f f i c i a l
r : e n e r : ' i tL v
J

of

a . s rMs a rj r n! r
v
r

vsusuf

Attctttsf a-

Richmond County; and LYNN
capacity
BAILEY, in her official
as Executive Director of the
Richmond Countv Board of
Blections,

*
+

Defendants.

ORDER

this

Courtr s

attorneys'
action
\/nf inc
v

v

e r r r Y

the

before

Presently

(doc.

seeking
Ri ohf s

enforcement
Act

1965.

of

Plaintiffs

3B).

from

of

rights

County

Commission

on

May

motion

to

dismiss,

Arrrrrri nl_men,l-

Plaintiffs'

of

motion

under

denied

nra'l

n- nJrlr. J ll . L
r
l l
7

i m i n rl r a zJ
frr

[/!gI+rrLf

brouqht
5

Section

Mayor

This

Court

inJ
! r ri r

r l E In f
U a Ii

r n nrtu' i n n
sr

and

arl
Eu

this
the
L

rn
LU

the

qranLed

motion

Pfaintiffs'

stay

of

^^,,-l^f
DUL.T9II

for

r nIrU
dI l

to

reasonabfe

Plaintiffs

2014.

?0,

tL I r Ia o - i Cr; r l r u aL r l . r v E
hI
Er
J

for

initiallv

elections

holding

Defendants

Defendants'

Defendants

sner-i f ir-el I v-

enjoin

motion

Plaintiffs'

and Judgment granting

Order

fees

is

Court

as
(doc.

for
moot
24).

Defendants
which

this

granting

resolution
to

a

of

fo

Rule

fhe

hJr z
4

Rul-e of

Federal

the

of

motion

Civil

bOnd.

of

a

supersedeas

bond

e r l _ L I ir r r jr r r
\

r.-

appeal . "

Allen

WL l-430314, at

tLhr eu
r

(S.D.

v.

FED.

to

is

R.

+1

the

* - * F . ' ,L y

!f

-

,

lzillggq-Inc.

*i

D

No.

Pursuant
a

appeal
"The

quo

status

-Ltq

nenrl'i

\jrrLD

}JEfrurrrY

5 : 05-cv-51,

(internal

Ga. May 14,2001)

(N.D

may obtain

preserve
Hq!

order

62 (d) .

P.

CfV.

to

Mooney

and Judgment pending

nr a ll n- -aF J I. J t rG ]. t F e ' l li r rn r r
v
r u r
I r ,E -

rz. Egptia!
*1

Co.

Sur.

62, an appellant

Order

qrrnarqcdore

rrrnl-

judgment or

2013 WL 604812L, at

Procedure

court's

district

a party

Fun. R. App. P. B (a) (1) (A) ).

(quoting

A

purpose
o
-

oppose the

the

W.

appeal. "

12-cv-1309,

I

of

a stay

i nrr

nnqf

urlri'l

pending

No

Inc.,

for

court

court

Ga. Nov. L4, 2013)

stay

38) pending

8 permits

Procedure

Appellate

of

district

district

Constr.,

to

do not

Court

41).

"Federal
ar nr n1 r r
* r _l

and now move this

35-37)

Defendants

appeal.

the

(doc.

stay

of

and Judgment

Order

Order and Judgment (doc.

the

of

enforcement

(docs.26,

S15,975.00

Court/ s

the

(docs.

fees

fees,

reasonabl-e attorneys'

amount of

the

appealed

have

attorneys'

stay

in

sranted

Plaintiffs

35) .

to

Court

for

a motion

filed

then

nn

2001

quotation

marks omitted).
Notwithstanding
-i-

fltdyt

the
"The

ItI

stay

.ii-a

IL,>

of

Court's

the

\\6Jan=ri

diqrre1-inn_

UIJU!ELTVII/

execution
'power

requirement
frnm

Mlll

sCIJgrL

without
to

bond has been exercised

waive
only

to
r hIe
LI E

posting

the
the

post
.rFnFrAl

/

rr
r u Ir

YE-lrs4qf

of

requirement

extraordinary

in

bond,

the

'l e

and

such a bond. "
of

a

Court
aIIOW

Id.

supersedeas

circumstances

and

were available.t

interest
l \ n1r\ r v Lf+ + + Y n r r
n
i
\ l

Inc.

Prods.,

Te r,a

*2

of

requiremenL

usual

place

should

for

reasons

& Refininq

such

rlen.*

Bache HaIsev

Co. v.

the
it

bond
to

t'

r1* tr re

2011) )

from

depart

party

moving

the

9,

Sept.

supersedes

security

on

FIa.

chooses to

a court

full

a

burden

the
the

demonstrate
Plantinq

*If

omitted) .

(S.D.

No.

Inc.,

Gadgets,

*2

at

2013 V{L 604812I,

Hollywood

v.

09-61436-CTV, 20LI WL 4020855, at
(alterations

Co.,

Vi. Sur.

"

n l- / D l

I n nn -mnrr:

the

securing

of

means

alternative

where

onfv

objectively
Drrnl

rr

600 F.2d

Inc.,

Stuart.,

1189, l-l-91 (Sth Cir.

1979) . r

Thus, where the movant

demonstrates

a

present

financial

ability

r e rq v r Io n a l
E Hn s

rttvrrv

ancl

nreqenl-S

for

maintaining

[]r^nrre

!

a

tL o
V

m n n F \j /

A

financially

d v : Jrro e
son uv

iJ r v Yc lll v r rm e n i
qr r o

q IV l I ny
- -n l ErT + U r . r r

nf

plan

secure

J _ rc
h
Lr E

r l.rrrL r I r l l ,9- r
L ri n

neri
orl
IJErruu

to

the

to

^t
(Jr

facilely
court

the

same

---^1
ClIJIJEdrr

+l-^
LlrE

substitute
to
a discretion
may then exercise
court
judgment responsibility
for
some form of guaranty of
if
the
Contrariwise,
supersedeas bond.
usual
the
fmnrrant'sl
L + r r v

v

u

r r r L

J

nresent

financial

condition

is

such

that

of
a ful-I bond would impose an undue
the posting
free
to
court
similarly
is
the
burden,
financial
some
other
fashion
discretion
to
a
exercise
an
security
through
substitute
for
arrangement
s]
financial
restraint
on the
appropriate
fmovant/
which woul-d f urnish equal protecti-on to the
dealing,
f nnn-mnrli

to

form
i

nersrrade

rv rrrD
L
+ ay u E r a q l _ q J

+Ir\Jr

is

*

I

r
s

qrnersedeas

v

rJ

ts*!

roman

f-erEy,l .

n;

have

Pl-aintiffs

Here,

tfl

rafllr

nru

q f L d .ryz
.a

+

the

Court

not

submitted

that

deviation

fndeed,

appropriate
n .f/ !
L

hond or

tLh le
r E

O! rurEl !c ' *
U

RuIe

evidence

any
from

the

their

and Judoment without

j-n

standard

motion
reference

any
bond

simply
to

a

62.

t

6 6 1 F . 2 d 1 20 6 , I 2 0 ' l ( 1 1 t h C i r .
Ala.,
of
Prichard,
City
See Bonner v.
(holding
made on or before September 30, 1981,
decisions
Circuit
1981)
Fifth
precedent
in EfevenLh Circrrt).
are binding
J

Thus,
fulI

to

bond

supersedeas

WITHOUT

to

Motion

38) is

L o c a l R u l - e 6 - l. I ,

f)er-emlrcr-

,

to

a

is

hereby
the

Rule

62 (d)

and in

Georgia,

DENIED

O R D E R E Dt h a t

first

posting

a

accordance with

$15,975,00 .

Augusta,

is

the

Order and Judgment

upon Plaintiffs

the amount of

ORDER ENTERED at

it

Stay Enforcement of

pursuant
in

request

from

departure

such

requirement,

G R A I { I E Dc o n d i t i o n e d

supersedeas bond,

request

Plaintiffs

Nonetheless,

PREJI'DICE.'

Plaintiffs'
(doc.

extent

the

thi s -d

f]
I/
l l o f r -Eay

of

?014.

! v !

l-

i HoNORABLE
\ U N T T E DS T , T E S D I S T R ] C T J U D G B
I

\sourunRVD I S T R I C T

'
waive
within

wish
to
submit
Pfaintiffs
Should
rFnranf
the
sunersedeas
bond ronrri
Order.
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of t h i s

4

evidence
,

1 *h r v r
v+ cr!

as
tra

OF GEORG]A

Court
to why the
hereby
ORDERED to

should
do so