Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00407/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00407-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Suggestion Box, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Alberto Gonzales, in his official capacity

as Attorney General of the United States,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-407-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiff's complaint challenges the constitutionality of two provisions of the

Communications Decency Act. 47 U.S.C. §§ 223(a)(1)(C), 233(a)(2). Plaintiff seeks

declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that the challenged provisions are

unconstitutional, both facially and as applied. Plaintiff has filed a motion for preliminary and

permanent injunction (doc. 10) and defendant has filed a motion to dismiss (doc. 13). 

Neither of these motions is fully briefed.

The court now has before it plaintiff's motion to convene a three-judge panel (doc.

11), defendant's response (doc. 12), and a joint motion to suspend the briefing schedule (doc.

16). 

Pursuant to the "expedited review" provision of the Communications Decency Act,

Pub. L. 104-104, § 561, 110 Stat, 56 (1996), "any civil action challenging the

constitutionality, on its face, of this [Act] . . . shall be heard by a district court of 3 judges

Case 2:06-cv-00407-FJM Document 17 Filed 07/20/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

convened pursuant to the provisions of section 2284 of title 28, United States Code."

Although the defendant contends that plaintiff's challenge is really "as applied," he concedes

that a three-judge court should be convened. Response at 3. Because plaintiff's complaint

purports to challenge the facial constitutionality of the Act, we conclude that a three-judge

panel is required to determine the merits of plaintiff's claims. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's motion to convene a

three-judge panel (doc. 11). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING the joint motion

to suspend the briefing schedule (doc. 16). Plaintiff shall have until August 11, 2006 to file

its reply in support of its motion for preliminary and permanent injunction and response to

defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant shall have until August 18, 2006 to file his reply

in support of his motion to dismiss.

By this order, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(b)(1), we ask Chief Judge Mary

Schroeder of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to designate two other

judges, at least one of whom shall be a circuit judge, who, together with the undersigned, will

hear and decide this case. 

DATED this 19th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00407-FJM Document 17 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 2