On February 4, 2016, U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley, denied the Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order in the case of Welchen v. Harris et. al, a case where the Plaintiffs are asserting that California’s bail system is unconstitutional and that California Attorney General Kamala Harris is ordering local officials to violate the constitution. He did so because the Plaintiffs failed to show that they have any likelihood of succeeding on the merits.
Said Judge Nunley: “Plaintiff’s briefing is replete with one-liner platitudes concerning equal justice and wealth status.” He also noted that Plaintiff’s briefing makes “overarching legal conclusions” but fails to provide him with any facts upon which relief may be granted. Judge Nunley further criticized the Plaintiff’s attorneys for not presenting an “accurate depiction of the system.”
Judge Nunley took one final parting shot at the Plaintiff’s theory prior to denying their motion: “In sum, Plaintiff’s freedom rhetoric is not enough to overcome Plaintiff’s failure to show an actual constitutional violation.” Clearly, similar to Judge Yvette Gonzalez Rogers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District two weeks ago, Judge Nunley was less than impressed with the Plaintiff’s lawyer’s novel legal theory.
The American Bail Coalition continues to monitor all of these lawsuits, and while intervening in the Welchen v. Harris case remains a distinct possibility, ABC has decided not to intervene in this lawsuit or the Buffin v. San Francisco case at this time because it remains too early to determine if the cases will survive preliminary motions to dismiss and proceed to trial on the merits. ABC continues to coordinate with and support all the efforts of California’s state and local and bail associations as well as will continue to work behind the scenes to assist State and local governments in resisting the Plaintiff’s lawyers “freedom rhetoric” that, as Judge Nunley put it, does not amount to a constitutional violation.
Facebook Comments