From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Suggestion Box, Inc. v. Gonzales

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Jul 19, 2006
No. CV-06-407-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. Jul. 19, 2006)

Opinion

No. CV-06-407-PHX-FJM.

July 19, 2006


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 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.


Summaries of

Suggestion Box, Inc. v. Gonzales

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Jul 19, 2006
No. CV-06-407-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. Jul. 19, 2006)
Case details for

Suggestion Box, Inc. v. Gonzales

Case Details

Full title:The Suggestion Box, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Alberto Gonzales, in his official…

Court:United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Jul 19, 2006

Citations

No. CV-06-407-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. Jul. 19, 2006)