Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00982/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00982-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:3601 Fair Housing Act

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

CENTRAL ALABAMA FAIR )

HOUSING CENTER, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:11cv982-MHT

) (WO) 

JULIE MAGEE, in her )

official capacity as )

Alabama Revenue )

Commissioner, and )

JIMMY STUBBS, in his )

official capacity as )

Elmore County Probate )

Judge, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

On November 18, 2011, the plaintiffs filed this

lawsuit charging that defendants Julie Magee (in her

official capacity as Alabama Revenue Commissioner) and

Jimmy Stubbs (in his official capacity as Elmore County

Probate Judge) violated the United States Constitution,

as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Fair

Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604, by applying § 30 of the

Case 2:11-cv-00982-MHT-CSC Document 83 Filed 12/07/11 Page 1 of 5
2

Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection

Act, 2011 Ala. Laws 535, to Alabama’s manufactured homes

statute, 1975 Ala. Code § 40-12-255. The plaintiffs’

complaint was accompanied by both a motion for temporary

restraining order and a motion for preliminary

injunction. After meeting with counsel for both sides,

the court set both motions for a November 23 evidentiary

hearing. 

On November 23, after conducting an evidentiary

hearing and entertaining oral argument from both sides,

the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary

restraining order, with the order set to expire on

December 7, 2011, at 4:30 p.m. Cent. Ala. Fair Hous.

Ctr. v. Magee, 2011 WL 5878363 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 23, 2011).

On November 28, defendant Magee filed a motion to

dissolve the temporary restraining order, and, on

November 30, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce and

amend it. The court set the plaintiffs’ motion for a

December 1 evidentiary hearing. 

Case 2:11-cv-00982-MHT-CSC Document 83 Filed 12/07/11 Page 2 of 5
3

On December 1, after receiving and reviewing briefs

from the parties, the court denied the defendants’ motion

to dissolve. Cent. Ala. Fair Hous. Ctr. v. Magee, 2011

WL 6010501 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 1, 2011). Also just prior to

the December 1 hearing, the parties resolved the issues

presented by the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce and amend,

and the motion was withdrawn on December 2.

At the December 1 hearing, defendant Magee asked for

clarification of an issue. The court stated that the

issue would be clarified in its order resolving the

plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motion after further

briefing by the parties. Defendant Magee filed her

supplemental brief on December 5, and the plaintiffs

filed their supplemental brief on December 6.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2) provides

that a temporary restraining order will expire no later

than 14 days after its issuance “unless before that time

the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period

or the adverse party consents to a longer extension.”

Case 2:11-cv-00982-MHT-CSC Document 83 Filed 12/07/11 Page 3 of 5
4

The Rule further provides that “The reasons for an

extension must be entered in the record.” Because the

court has had to spend substantial time addressing issues

that arose after entry of its order granting the motion

for temporary restraining order; because of the need to

review the recently filed briefs (with the last one filed

only yesterday) on defendant Magee’s request for

clarification; and because of the complex issues

presented by this litigation, the court needs more time

to resolve the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary

injunction. 

***

Accordingly, and “for good cause,” Fed.R.Civ.P.

65(b)(2), it is ORDERED that the temporary restraining

order entered on November 23, 2011, (doc. no. 50), is

extended to December 12, 2011, at 4:30 p.m., at which

time it will expire. See Maine v. Fri, 483 F.2d 439, 441

(1st Cir. 1973) (“as long as the hearing on the

preliminary injunction is held expeditiously within the

Case 2:11-cv-00982-MHT-CSC Document 83 Filed 12/07/11 Page 4 of 5
appropriate time frame, the district court should be able

to extend the restraining order while it prepares its

decision”); see also Assocs. Fin. Servs. Co. v.

Mercantile Mortg. Co., 727 F. Supp. 371, 375 (N.D. Ill.

1989) (Moran, J.) (granting several month extension

because 20 days was “a woefully inadequate time in which

to prepare for, hear and decide a motion for preliminary

injunction”). 

DONE, this the 7th day of December, 2011.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-00982-MHT-CSC Document 83 Filed 12/07/11 Page 5 of 5