Letter to Judge Thompson from Menefee RE: Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

    BLACKSHER, MENEFEE & STEIN, P.A. 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

  

405 VAN ANTWERP BUILDING 

P.O. BOX 1051 

MOBILE, ALABAMA 36633 

JAMES U. BLACKSHER TELEPHONE 

LARRY T. MENEFEE December 13 1985 (205) 433-2000 

GREGORY B. STEIN 

WANDA L. COCHRAN 

Hon. Myron H. Thompson 
United States District Judge 
United States District Court 
Middle District of Alabama 
United States Courthouse 
Montgomery, Alabama 36106 

Re: t bama ; A . 85-T-1332— 

Dear Judge Thompson: 

Contemporaneous with this letter we are filing with the Clerk of 
Court a motion for leave to amend the complaint and amended 
complaint as we discussed in the status conference held with Your 
Honor on Friday, December 6. The amended complaint adds a number 
of additional county defendants. 

I have, of course, sent a copy of the motion and amended 
complaint to Mr. Alton Turner, attorney for Crenshaw County. I 
have requested Mr. Turner to give his written consent to this 
amendment. A literal reading of Rule 15(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., could 
indicate that that might be all that is necessary to allow the 
amendment. 

Nevertheless, I will await an order from Your Honor. If Your 
Honor sees fit to allow this amendment, we will then prepare the 
necessary copies and summons, in consultation with the Clerk's 
Office, for service of the additional defendants. 

We have not prepared an additional brief, feeling that the motion 
adequately sets forth the controlling procedural rules. If Your 
Honor has any questions, we will be glad to provide further 
authority. Substantively in this area of law a number of cases 
have recognized that a series of events and transactions may be 
used to show the discrimination about which plaintiffs complain 
herein. Most prominently, Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan 
Housing Corp., 429 U.S.252, 50 L.Ed.2d 450, 97 S.Ct.555 (1977): 

The historical background of the decision is one 
evidentiary source, particularly if it reveals a 
series of official action taken for invidious 

 



Hon. Myron H. Thompson 
December 13, 1985 
Page Two 

  

purposes. ... The specific sequence of events 
leading up to the challenged decision also may 
shed some light on the decision-maker’'s purposes. 

420 U.S. at 267; 50 L.Ed.2d at 465-66. The historical analysis 

encompassing a series of transactions and occurrences is also 
appropriate under authority such as Rogers v. Lodge, 458 
U.S.613 (1982) and the amended section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965, 42 U.S.C.Section 1973. 

Best regards. 

Very respectfully, 

BLACKSHER, MENEFEE & STEIN, P.A. 

LE — na 

Larry . Menpfee 

LTM:pfm 

CC: Alton L. Turner, Esq. 
Terry G. Davis, Esq. 
Deborah Fins, Esq.