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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HOWARD HERSHIPS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, ET AL., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 17-cv-00473-YGR 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

EXPEDITE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECTION 

1657 AND TO EMPANEL A THREE-JUDGE 

COURT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECTION 

2284 

Re: Dkt. No. 16 

Plaintiff brings this action against defendants Tani Cantil-Sakauye in her capacity as the 

Director of the California Judicial Council and Jean Shiomoto in her capacity as the Director of 

the California Department of Motor Vehicles, alleging the violation of his civil rights in 

connection with the suspension of his driver’s license. (Dkt. No. 17, “FAC.”) 

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to expedite his action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

section 1657 and to empanel a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2284. Having 

considered the pleadings and the papers submitted, and for the reasons set forth more fully below, 

the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion.1

I. MOTION TO EXPEDITE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1657 

Section 1657 provides thus: “[E]ach court of the United States shall determine the order in 

which civil actions are heard and determined, except that the court shall expedite the consideration 

of any action brought under chapter 153 or section 1826 of this title, any action for temporary or 

 1

 Plaintiff also requests that the Court set a hearing for a temporary restraining order. The 

Court has already twice denied plaintiff’s motions for the same, and no reason exists to reconsider 

such decision at this time. Plaintiff further requested that all Rule 26 disclosures be completed by 

March 15, 2017. The Court finds no reason to expedite disclosure and discovery obligations 

beyond that required by law. 
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

preliminary injunctive relief, or any other action if good cause therefor is shown. For purposes of 

this subsection, ‘good cause’ is shown if a right under the Constitution of the United States or a 

Federal Statute (including rights under section 552 of title 5) would be maintained in a factual 

context that indicates that a request for expedited consideration has merit.” None of the situations 

outlined in 28 U.S.C. section 1657 exists here: First, the instant action is not one brought under 

chapter 153 or section 1826 of Title 28, but rather it is brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 

Second, the Court has already twice denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, 

and no motion for temporary or preliminary injunctive relief is currently pending. Finally, 

plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for expediting the current action.2 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to expedite his action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. section 1657. 

II. MOTION TO EMPANEL THREE-JUDGE COURT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2284 

Section 2284 provides thus: “A district court of three judges shall be convened when 

otherwise required by Act of Congress, or when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality 

of the apportionment of congressional districts or the apportionment of any statewide legislative 

body.” Plaintiff argues that California Government Code sections 68085 and 77003 violate due 

process because they create a “structural conflict of interest” by establishing a system in which 

judicial officers of traffic courts rely on money “from finding the defendants guilty verdict [sic] 

and imposing exorbitant penalty assessments[,] fines[,] and fee[s] to fund the court as well as pay 

the salaries and benefits of every judicial officer of trial court.” (Dkt. No. 16 at 2.) Such, 

however, does not fall within the narrow circumstances in which section 2284 requires the 

empaneling of a three-judge court. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to empanel a three-judge court pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. section 2284. 

 2

 The legislative history of section 1657 further provides examples of situations in which 

the “good cause” standard could be met, namely, cases in which the failure to expedite would 

result in mootness or deprive the relief requested of much of its value or result in extraordinary 

hardship to a litigant or actions where the public interest in enforcement of the statute is 

particularly strong. See H. Rep. No. 98-985 at 6 (1984). 
3 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to expedite the instant 

action and to empanel a three-judge court. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 16. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 26, 2017 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE