Rouse v. Abernathy
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:21-cv-05708
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Rouse v. Abernathy, Judge Corley denied as moot motions to compel and reconsider jury-trial relief, and denied reconsideration of an injunction.
Xezakia Rouse's motions were denied or denied as moot; Ronald Hayes Abernathy had already answered, and the requested injunction targeted Napa County and the City of Napa, which the court said were not parties.
What happened
In Rouse v. Abernathy, Xezakia Rouse asked the court to compel Ronald Hayes Abernathy to answer and sought reconsideration of earlier orders concerning a jury trial and an injunction.
The court denied the motion to compel as moot because Abernathy had already answered. It also denied reconsideration of the jury-trial issue as moot because a trial had been scheduled. The court denied reconsideration of the injunction request because it targeted Napa County and City of Napa officials, who were not parties to the lawsuit.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley issued the order on June 22, 2022, and stated that it disposed of both motions.
The detailed version
- Rouse v. Abernathy · No. 3:21-cv-05708
- Jacquelyn Corley
- June 22, 2022
Background
Xezakia Rouse moved to compel Ronald Hayes Abernathy to answer the Second Amended Complaint. Rouse also moved for reconsideration of earlier orders denying without prejudice his requests for a jury trial and an injunction to prevent further harm.
Rouse said Napa County and City of Napa officials had retaliated against him since he first complained about corruption in 2013. He sought an injunction that would prevent Napa officials from harassing or surveilling him, executing warrants against him outside Napa, restricting his travel, or communicating with him about matters other than this case.
Court’s Rulings
The court denied the motion to compel as moot because Abernathy had answered the Second Amended Complaint on May 2, 2022.
The court denied as moot the request to reconsider the denial of a jury trial because a jury trial had been scheduled for October 2, 2023.
The court denied the request to reconsider the preliminary-injunction ruling. A preliminary injunction is an order issued before final judgment that requires or prohibits conduct. The court explained that Rouse sought relief against Napa County and the City of Napa, not against Abernathy, and that neither the County nor the City was a party to the lawsuit. The court therefore concluded that Rouse had not shown a likelihood of success against those entities and that the balance of equities did not favor an injunction because they had not received notice that Rouse sought one against them.
The order stated that it disposed of Docket Nos. 24 and 25.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.