Defendants-Appellees' Motion for Time to Respond
Public Court Documents
May 12, 1988

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Chisom Hardbacks. Defendants-Appellees' Motion for Time to Respond, 1988. 25bae037-f211-ef11-9f8a-6045bddc4804. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/16dd58a6-dff2-48b5-916e-3e339ddd73f9/defendants-appellees-motion-for-time-to-respond. Accessed April 27, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 87-3463 RONALD CHISOM, ET AL Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus EDWIN EDWARDS, ET AL Defendants-Appellees, APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES' MOTION FOR TIME TO RESPOND Defendants-appellees, through undersigned counsel, move the Court for a period of ten (10) days to respond to the "Motion for an Injunction Pending Appeal or, in the Alternative, for Issuance of the Mandate" heretofore herein filed, for the following reasons: (.• 2 1. On yesterday, May 11, 1988, lead counsel for the defendants-appellees received a copy of the plaintiffs-appellants "Motion for an Injunction Pending Appeal Or, in the Alternative, for Issuance of the Mandate" [the "Motion"]. 2. Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure states that "motions authorized by Rules 8 . [inter alia] may be acted upon after reasonable notice, and the court may shorten or extend the time for responding to any motion." 3. Counsel for defendants-appellees submits that defendants-appellees should be granted ten (10) days to respond to the Motion received yesterday. Such a ten (10) day period will be necessary because of the unusual and complexity of the request posed and because the motion appears to conflict with Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 4. The procedural story of this case is a short one. After the filing of a complaint, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion was filed and favorably considered by the court below. No evidence was considered necessary or permissible for purposes of this motion. An appeal to this court timely perfected was followed by a reversal and remand. Both a motion for rehearing by the panel and a suggestion for rehearing en banc were filed. Neither of these have been acted upon. 5. Out of this procedural history, and without consideration of the factual vacuum in which this case now lies, the plaintiffs-appellants would seek extraordinary relief here of an injunction to prohibit Louisiana from the exercise of its most basic governmental function - election of its judges, or, alternatively, cause the immediate issuance of an mandate prior to the completion of the procedural remedies sought both before this panel and the full court only so that the plaintiffs-appellants might be provided with a judicial forum to immediately seek injunctive relief. 6. The jurisdictional and prudential problems that plague the rights of the defendants-appellees to 4 present evidence in this case have been dramatically exposed. The efforts of the plaintiffs-appellants to secure from this Court summary-type relief, enuring to the benefit of the plaintiffs-appellants underscore the the propriety and advisability of granting to the defendants-appellees an adequate opportunity to timely and intellectually respond to plaintiffs-appellants current motion. Dated: May 12, 1988 WILLIAM J. GUSTE, JR. ATTORNEY GENERAL Louisiana Department of 234 Loyola Avenue, 7th New Orleans, Louisiana (504) 568-5575 M. TRUMAN WOODWARD, JR. 209 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 581-3333 BLAKE G. ARATA 201 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 582-1111 By: Justice Floor 70112 A. R. CHRISTOVICH 1900 American Bank Bldg. New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 561-5700 MOISE W. DENNERY 601 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 586-1241 RO ERT G. PUGH L-ad Counsel 330 Marshall Street, Suite 1200 Shreveport, LA 71101 (318) 227-2270 SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above and foregoing motion for time to respond has this day been served upon the plaintiffs through their counsel of record: William P. Quigley, Esquire 631 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Julius L. Chambers, Esquire Charles Stephen Ralston, Esquire C. Lani Guinier, Esquire Ms. Pamela S. Karlan 99 Hudson Street 16th Floor New York, New York 10013 Roy Rodney, Esquire 643 Camp Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Ron Wilson, Esquire Richards Building, Suite 310 837 Gravier Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, properly addressed. All parties required to be served have been served. Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, this the 12th day of May, 1988. Robert G. Pugh Lead Counsel