The Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless et al v. Brunner

Filing 788

ORDER granting 784 Motion to Stay. The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion, staying enforcement of the Court's injunction as ordered in its June 7, 2016 Final Judgment (Doc. 691). The Court thus GRANTS in full Defendants' Partial Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (Doc. 784). Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 8/18/2016. (cw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

THE NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION
FOR THE HOMELESS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JON HUSTED, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF
THE STATE OF OHIO,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 2:06-CV-896
JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted's and the State of
Ohio's ("Defendants") Partial Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (Doc. 784), which incorporates the
June 8, 2016 Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (Doc. 694). Defendants so move to avoid
complicating two unanticipated special elections—one a special municipal recall election to be
held on August 23, 2016 in the City of Upper Arlington (the "August election"), and the other a
special (uncontested) Democratic Party primary election to be held on September 13, 2016 (the
"September election"). Defendants move to suspend in part the Court's injunction as ordered in
its June 7, 2016 Final Judgment (Doc. 691). (Doc. 784 at 1.)
Defendants aver that implementing new election-administration standards contained in
the Final Judgment would create the risk of confusion for the administration of the two elections.
Plaintiffs the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, Columbus Coalition for the Homeless,
and Intervenor-Plaintiff the Ohio Democratic Party take no position as to the August election
except if the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals renders a decision before the election results are
1

certified. Plaintiff's position as to Defendants' request for a stay concerning the September
election is that the request is premature until early September.
The factors regulating a court's issuance of a stay pending appeal are: "(1) whether the
stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether
the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will
substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public
interest lies." Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776-77 (1987) (citing Virginia Petroleum
Jobbers Ass'n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958); Washington Metropolitan Area
Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 842-44 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Garcia-Mir v. Meese,
781 F.2d 1450, 1453 (11th Cir. 1986); Accident Fund v. Baerwaldt, 579 F. Supp. 724, 725 (W.D.
Mich. 1984); 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2904 (1973)).
As to the August election, given Plaintiffs' lack of opposition and Defendants' showing
on the equitable factors, i.e. inconvenience and confusion in the administration of an election
only five days away, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion, staying enforcement of the
Court's injunction as ordered in its June 7, 2016 Final Judgment (Doc. 691).
As to the September election, although Defendants have not made a strong showing that
they are likely to succeed on appeal, applying factor 2 leads this Court to conclude that a stay is
warranted. The September election is uncontested; hence, there is no indication that Plaintiffs or
the electorate will suffer any harm whatsoever. Given that unique circumstance—the uncontested
nature of the election—there is no need for this Court to reach the remaining Hilton factors. The
Court thus GRANTS in full Defendants' Partial Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (Doc. 784).

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Algenon L. Marbley
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: August 18, 2016

3