IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMAWESTERN DIVISIONWILLIAM JOHNSON, ANNIE PEARLLEFTWICH, BOBBI MORGAN, DONALDMEANS, ERNEST EDMONDS, FAIRYGORDON, IRIS SERMON, JOHNNY BUTLER,MERJEAN LITTLE, MOSES JONES, VASSIEBROWN, WILLIE MAE REEVES, BEVERLYGORDON, JOHNNY B. MORROW, FANNIEISHMAN, LESLIE CHEATEM, MARGIEJAMES, BOBBY SINGLETON, A. J.MCCAMBELL, JOHNNY FORD, LOUISMAXWELL, MARY RUTH WOODS, LISA M.WARE, CLARA P. GRIMMETT, CHARLESCHAMBLISS, JOHNNIE B. HARRISON, G.DYANN ROBINSON, SHIRLEY W. CURRY,SARAH STRINGER, MILES D. ROBINSON, andWILLIE LEE PATTERSON, individually and onbehalf of others similarly situated,Plaintiffs,v.BOB RILEY, in his individual capacity and in hisofficial capacity as Governor of Alabama, andJOHN M. TYSON, JR., individually and in hisofficial capacity as special prosecutor and task force commander of the Governor’s Task Force onIllegal Gaming,Defendants.********************Civil Action No.*7:10-cv-02067-SLB**Three-judge court*requested******
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
FILED
2010 Aug-02 AM 10:42U.S. DISTRICT COURTN.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 7:10-cv-02067-SLB Document 3 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 5
Plaintiffs William Johnson et al., through undersigned counsel, pursuant toRule 65, Fed.R.Civ.P., move for entry of a preliminary injunction under § 5 of theVoting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, restoring the
status quo ante
in GreeneCounty and preserving the
status quo
in Macon County. As grounds for theirmotion, plaintiffs would show, as more fully set out in their brief supporting thismotion, as follows:1. There is a substantial likelihood that plaintiffs will prevail on the merits.2. Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent will suffer irreparable injuryunless the preliminary injunction issues.3. Defendants will suffer no irreparable injury if a preliminary injunction isentered. Alternatively, the threatened injury to plaintiffs and the class they seek torepresent outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may causedefendants.4. If issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Tothe contrary, it would carry out Congress’ intent in enacting § 5 of the VotingRights Act, which is to shift the burden of time and inertia to the state todemonstrate that changes in standards, practices or procedures affecting voting willhave neither the purpose nor the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote of African Americans.
2
Case 7:10-cv-02067-SLB Document 3 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 5
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the Court will:A. Request the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuitto convene a three-judge court to hear and decide Count One of plaintiffs’complaint.B. Following a hearing before the three-judge Court,(1) enter a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants Riley andTyson and those acting in concert with them or at their direction fromimplementing Executive Order 44 and amended Executive Order 44 and fromconducting police raids in Greene and Macon Counties complained of herein untilthey have been submitted and precleared under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42U.S.C. § 1973c; and(2) grant such other and further equitable relief as may be necessary torestore the personal and property rights in Greene and Macon Counties violated bythe unlawful implementation of Executive Order 44 and amended Executive Order44 and the police raids complained of herein.C. Plaintiffs further pray that the court will exercise its discretion underRule 65(c), Fed.R.Civ.P., and waive the requirement that plaintiffs give security inan amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustainedby any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. Alternatively,
3
Case 7:10-cv-02067-SLB Document 3 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 5
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
