16 Mot Reconsider

download 16 Mot Reconsider

of 4

Transcript of 16 Mot Reconsider

  • 8/8/2019 16 Mot Reconsider

    1/4

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

    WESTERN DIVISION

    WILLIAM JOHNSON, ANNIE PEARL

    LEFTWICH, BOBBI MORGAN, DONALD

    MEANS, ERNEST EDMONDS, FAIRY

    GORDON, IRIS SERMON, JOHNNY BUTLER,

    MERJEAN LITTLE, MOSES JONES, VASSIE

    BROWN, WILLIE MAE REEVES, BEVERLY

    GORDON, JOHNNY B. MORROW, FANNIE

    ISHMAN, LESLIE CHEATEM, MARGIE

    JAMES, BOBBY SINGLETON, A. J.

    MCCAMBELL, JOHNNY FORD, LOUISMAXWELL, MARY RUTH WOODS, LISA M.

    WARE, CLARA P. GRIMMETT, CHARLES

    CHAMBLISS, JOHNNIE B. HARRISON, G.

    DYANN ROBINSON, SHIRLEY W. CURRY,

    SARAH STRINGER, MILES D. ROBINSON, and

    WILLIE LEE PATTERSON, individually and on

    behalf of others similarly situated,

    Plaintiffs,

    v.

    BOB RILEY, in his individual capacity and in his

    official capacity as Governor of Alabama, and

    JOHN M. TYSON, JR., individually and in his

    official capacity as special prosecutor and task

    force commander of the Governors Task Force on

    Illegal Gaming,

    Defendants.

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    **

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    ** Civil Action No.

    * 7:10-cv-02067-SLB

    *

    * 3-judge court

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

    AND/OR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER

    SCHEDULING ORAL ARGUMENT ON MOTION TO DISMISS

    FI2010 Aug-30 PU.S. DISTRICT

    N.D. OF AL

    Case 7:10-cv-02067-SLB Document 16 Filed 08/30/10 Page 1 of 4

  • 8/8/2019 16 Mot Reconsider

    2/4

    Plaintiffs have received an order, Doc. 15, setting briefing deadlines on

    defendants motion to dismiss and oral argument on the motion to dismiss on

    November 17, 2010. This order was entered after plaintiffs had already filed their

    brief opposing defendants motion to dismiss. Doc. 14.

    It is not clear whether the order, which is signed by the single judge to

    whom this action was assigned, is an order of the three-judge court. Only the

    three-judge court has jurisdiction to determine plaintiffs claim that defendants

    executive order and Task Force raids are changes that affect voting within the

    meaning of 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. And only the three-

    judge court has jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs renewed motion for an expedited

    hearing and for a preliminary injunction. Doc. 12. The order, Doc. 15, does not

    refer to or schedule a hearing on plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction. The

    single-judge court has jurisdiction over the other federal claims alleged in the

    complaint, but the single-judge court will not have jurisdiction to act on those other

    claims unless and until there has been a determination of plaintiffs claim under 5

    of the Voting Rights Act and this case has been remanded to the single-judge court

    by the three-judge court.

    WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court will:

    A. Clarify whether the order entered today, Doc. 15, comes from the three-

    judge court or from the single-judge court.

    Case 7:10-cv-02067-SLB Document 16 Filed 08/30/10 Page 2 of 4

  • 8/8/2019 16 Mot Reconsider

    3/4

    B. Notify the parties whether and when the three-judge court will conduct a

    hearing on plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction.

    C. If the order, Doc. 15, is intended to schedule a hearing on plaintiffs

    motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiffs pray that the Court will reconsider the

    setting for November 17, 2010, and schedule a hearing at the earliest date possible.

    Otherwise, postponing for over two and a half months a decision on plaintiffs

    motion for preliminary injunction would effectively deny them the relief they

    request and would place the burden of time and inertia on the plaintiff voters

    instead of on the State, contrary to the explicit terms and Congressional purpose of

    5 of the Voting Rights Act, and it would allow continuation of the severe

    economic injury now being suffered by the residents of Greene County and Macon

    County.

    Respectfully submitted this 30th day of August, 2010,

    Edward Still

    Bar No. ASB-4786-I 47W

    2112 11th Avenue South

    Suite 541

    Birmingham, AL 35205

    205-320-2882

    fax 205-449-9752

    E-mail: [email protected]

    s/James U. Blacksher

    Bar No. ASB-2381-S82J

    P.O. Box 636

    Birmingham AL 35201

    205-591-7238

    Fax: 866-845-4395

    E-mail:[email protected]

    Fred D. Gray

    Bar No. ASB-1727-R63F

    Gray, Langford, Sapp, McGowan,

    Gray & Nathanson

    3

    Case 7:10-cv-02067-SLB Document 16 Filed 08/30/10 Page 3 of 4

  • 8/8/2019 16 Mot Reconsider

    4/4

    Attorneys for plaintiffs

    P. O. Box 830239

    Tuskegee , AL 36083-0239

    334-727-4830

    Fax: 334-727-5877

    E-mail: [email protected]

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I hereby certify that on August 30, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing

    with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification

    of such filing to the following counsel of record:

    Henry T. Reagan (REA021)

    OFFICE OF GOVERNOR BOB

    RILEY600 Dexter Avenue

    Montgomery, Alabama 36130

    Martha Tierney (TIE001)

    OFFICE OF GOVERNOR BOB

    RILEY600 Dexter Avenue

    Montgomery, Alabama 36130

    Notice of this filing has also been sent by email and first class postage to:

    Hon. Troy King

    Attorney General

    500 Dexter Ave.

    Montgomery AL 36130

    Respectfully submitted,

    s/James U. Blacksher

    Bar No. ASB-2381-S82JP.O. Box 636

    Birmingham AL 35201

    205-591-7238

    Fax: 866-845-4395

    E-mail:[email protected]

    4

    Case 7:10-cv-02067-SLB Document 16 Filed 08/30/10 Page 4 of 4