Defendants-Appellees' Motion for Time to Respond

    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