Herships v. Cantil-Sakauye, 4:17-cv-00473

Plaintiff Howard Herships sued state officials (Director of the Judicial Council and DMV Director) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging suspension of his driver’s license and alleging a due‑process structural conflict of interest tied to court funding statutes.
Plaintiff moved to expedite the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1657 and to convene a three‑judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2284.
The court previously denied plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order twice; no TRO or preliminary injunction is currently pending.
Plaintiff argued §§ 68085 and 77003 of the California Government Code create a structural conflict by tying trial court funding and judicial salaries to fines/penalty assessments.
The court considered statutory text and legislative history for § 1657 and the narrow statutory trigger for convening a three‑judge court under § 2284.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case should be expedited under 28 U.S.C. § 1657	Herships: constitutional rights at stake; need expedited consideration	Defs: no pending TRO/PI and no demonstrated "good cause" for expedition	Denied — no statutory basis, no pending injunctive relief, and plaintiff failed to show good cause
Whether a three‑judge court must be convened under 28 U.S.C. § 2284	Herships: California funding statutes create structural conflict implicating due process, requiring a three‑judge court	Defs: plaintiff’s challenge does not meet § 2284 trigger (which is limited to congressional or statewide legislative apportionment challenges)	Denied — § 2284 does not apply to this type of claim
Request to set a new TRO hearing	Herships: requests another TRO hearing	Defs: prior denials stand; no basis to reconsider	Denied — court already twice denied TRO and declines reconsideration
Request to expedite Rule 26 disclosures/discovery	Herships: sought earlier completion of disclosures	Defs: no special need to alter normal schedule	Denied — no reason to expedite beyond statutory requirements