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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?