4:17-cv-11441-LVP-MKM
Case: 17-2504 Document:
Doc # 30 8-1
Filed Filed:
12/28/17
12/28/2017
Pg 1 of 4Page:
Pg ID
1 448

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Deborah S. Hunt
Clerk

100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540
POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988

Filed: December 28, 2017

Mr. David J. Weaver
Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City
1000 Washington Avenue
Suite 219 Federal Building
Bay City, MI 48708-0000
Re: Case No. 17-2504, Adrian Fowler, et al v. Ruth Johnson
Originating Case No. : 4:17-cv-11441
Dear Clerk,
The Court issued the enclosed Order today in this case.
Sincerely yours,
s/Antoinette S. Macon
Case Manager
Direct Dial No. 513-564-7015
cc: Ms. Denise C. Barton
Mr. John G. Fedynsky
Mr. Anthony Dietrich Paris
Mr. Phil Telfeyan
Enclosure

Tel. (513) 564-7000
www.ca6.uscourts.gov

(1 of 4)

 4:17-cv-11441-LVP-MKM
Case: 17-2504 Document:
Doc # 30 8-2
Filed Filed:
12/28/17
12/28/2017
Pg 2 of 4Page:
Pg ID
1 449

(2 of 4)

FILED
Dec 28, 2017
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

No. 17-2504
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ADRIAN FOWLER, KITIA HARRIS, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
RUTH JOHNSON, Michigan Secretary of State, in
her official capacity,
Defendant-Appellant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

Before: GUY and GILMAN, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.*

Ruth Johnson, the Michigan Secretary of State in her official capacity (the “State”),
appeals a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 257.321a to suspend the driver’s licenses of people unable to pay their traffic debt. The State
moves for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal. The plaintiffs oppose the motion
for a stay. The district court denied a stay pending appeal on December 21, 2017. The State
requests an expedited ruling on its motion for a stay.
The State “bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify” the exercise of
discretion to grant a stay pending review. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). Four
factors guide our consideration of the motion for a stay: (1) whether the State has a likelihood of

*

The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, sitting by designation.

 4:17-cv-11441-LVP-MKM
Case: 17-2504 Document:
Doc # 30 8-2
Filed Filed:
12/28/17
12/28/2017
Pg 3 of 4Page:
Pg ID
2 450
No. 17-2504
-2success on the merits; (2) whether it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a stay;
(3) whether the requested injunctive relief will substantially injure other interested parties; and
(4) where the public interest lies. Id. at 434; see also In re EPA, 803 F.3d 804, 806 (6th Cir.
2015); Ohio ex rel. Celebrezze v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 812 F.2d 288, 290 (6th Cir.
1987). “The first two factors of the traditional standard are the most critical.” Nken, 556 U.S. at
434.

Moreover, the stay factors “are not prerequisites that must be met, but interrelated

considerations that must be balanced.” In re EPA, 803 F.3d at 806.
The State has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its
challenge to the district court’s ruling on procedural due process. See Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S.
535, 539 (1971) (holding that the “continued possession [of a driver’s license] may become
essential in the pursuit of a livelihood. Suspension of issued licenses thus involves state action
that adjudicates important interests of the licensees. In such cases the licenses are not to be taken
away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment.”).
But the State argues that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to comply fully with the
preliminary injunction in the immediate future. The injunction is broad in scope and provides
very little direction as to what specific actions should be taken to comply with the constitutional
due process requirements. Clearly, additional notice about the procedures available to persons
facing license suspension is contemplated.
The motion for a stay pending appeal is therefore GRANTED for a period of thirty days.
The action is REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of modifying the
injunctive relief granted, after whatever additional briefing or evidentiary hearings are deemed
necessary, to provide direction to the State as to the type of process required to comply with the

(3 of 4)

 4:17-cv-11441-LVP-MKM
Case: 17-2504 Document:
Doc # 30 8-2
Filed Filed:
12/28/17
12/28/2017
Pg 4 of 4Page:
Pg ID
3 451
No. 17-2504
-3court’s order. Any party seeking review of the amended injunctive relief granted should file a
timely notice of appeal, and any resulting appeal will be consolidated with this case.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk

(4 of 4)