Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
18 Reply on Mot-clarify

18 Reply on Mot-clarify

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,039 |Likes:
Published by still7725

More info:

Published by: still7725 on Sep 16, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
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**3-judge court*******
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TOPLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CLARIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
FILED
2010 Sep-02 PM 01:32U.S. DISTRICT COURTN.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 7:10-cv-02067-SLB Document 18 Filed 09/02/10 Page 1 of 5
 
Plaintiffs William Johnson et al., through undersigned counsel, reply asfollows to defendants’ response, Doc. 17, to plaintiffs’ motion, Doc. 16, forclarification and/or reconsideration of the scheduling order entered August 30,2010, Doc. 15.Defendants are simply wrong when they argue that scheduling a hearing onplaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction, Docs. 3 and 12, at the same time as ahearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss, Doc. 13, would be “contrary to theinterests of both federalism and judicial economy....” Doc. 17 at 1. Only thisthree-judge court has jurisdiction to address both plaintiffs’ motion for preliminaryinjunction and defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim under § 5 of theVoting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. And the three-judge court does not have jurisdiction to address the remaining statutory and constitutional claims in thecomplaint.It is judicially efficient and routine for a three-judge court to hold a singlehearing on both a motion for preliminary injunction and a motion to dismiss. E.g.,
Smith v. Clark 
, 189 F.Supp.2d 503, 505 (S.D. Miss. 2002) (3-judge court) (VotingRights Act), aff’d sub nom.
 Branch v. Smith
, 538 U.S. 254 (2003);
 Johnson v. Mortham
, 915 F.Supp. 1529, 1534 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (3-judge court) (VotingRights Act). It is just as routine for the hearing on preliminary injunction and
2
Case 7:10-cv-02067-SLB Document 18 Filed 09/02/10 Page 2 of 5
 
motion to dismiss to be consolidated in single-judge actions. E.g.,
 NationalFarmers Union Ins. Companies v. Crow Tribe of Indians
, 471 U.S. 845, 848(1985);
 Hodel v. Indiana
, 452 U.S. 314, 320 (1981);
Operation King's Dream v.Connerly
, 501 F.3d 584, 586 (6th Cir. 2007) (Voting Rights Act);
Kuhn v.Thompson
, 304 F.Supp.2d 1313, 1321 (M.D. Ala. 2004). The hearing on theGovernor of Alabama’s motion for preliminary injunction was consolidated withdefendant’s motion to dismiss in
 Hunt v. Anderson
, 794 F.Supp. 1551, 1553 (M.D.Ala. 1991).The motion for preliminary injunction and motion to dismiss both requirethe three-judge court to resolve the merits of plaintiffs’ § 5 claim: Did GovernorRiley’s Executive Order 44 and the Task Force raids carried out pursuant to thatexecutive order implement changes affecting voting? There is no point in hearingone motion but not the other.Delaying the hearing until November 2010 would effectively deny plaintiffs’motion for preliminary injunction.WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the three-judge court will grant the relief sought in their motion to clarify, Doc. 16.Respectfully submitted this 2
nd
day of September, 2010,
3
Case 7:10-cv-02067-SLB Document 18 Filed 09/02/10 Page 3 of 5

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->