Correspondence from Schartz to Ganucheau (Clerk); Order Amending Opinion

    • 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

500 CAMP STREET 

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70130 

CHAMBERS OF 

CHARLES SCHWARTZ. J. 

DISTRICT JUDGE 

July 21, 1988 

The Honorable Gilbert F. Ganucheau 
Clerk for the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 
United States Courthouse 
600 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Re: Chisom v. Edwards, Civ. No. 86-4075 "A" (E.D. La.), 
appeal on preliminary injunction pending, 
No. 88-3492 (5th Cir.) 

Dear Mr. Ganucheau: 

Pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-
cedure, I am writing you to seek leave of court from the Fifth 
Circuit in order that I may amend my Opinion entered July 7, 1988. 

Please forward my letter to the panel assigned to the instant 
appeal in this matter so that it may consider my request for leave 
of court. Enclosed is the proposed order, and proposed Amending 
and Superseding Opinion, I intend to enter if the panel grants 
leave. 

Sincerely, 

AeAs 1 Schwartz Jr‘4)/ 

cc: All counsel of record 

Enclosure 
CSJr:ph 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

RONALD CHISOM, ET AL. 

VERSUS 

EDWIN EDWARDS, ET AL. 

Civil Action 

No. 86-4075 

Section 11A111 

Order Amending Opinion 

By Order dated July , 1988, this matter was remanded to 

this Court for the limited purpose of allowing this Court to amend 

its written Opinion entered July 7, 1988. 

This Court has discovered the following three errors arising 

from oversight or omission in the Opinion. First, the second 

paragraph on page 4 of the Opinion should read in its entirety as 

follows (the underscored text representing added material): 

Earlier this year, during the current state legis-
lative session, Representative Bruneau introduced House 
Bill No. 1630, which would create seven new single-
member districts for the Louisiana Supreme Court; this  
bill would divide Orleans Parish so as to become parts  
of two new districts. It appears that another bill,  
providing for a "Missouri-plan" system for selecting  
Louisiana's justices, has been proposed this year, that 
a house committee passed on the bill favorably by a 
four-to-one majority on May 30, that the bill came up 
for vote in the House that same day but failed for being 
four votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority, lu 
.and that the bill remains viable but with no further 
action thereon having been taken since May 30. 

Second, the phrase "F.R.Civ.P. 8(a)" on page 14, which was copied 

from the Fifth Circuit's Order of May 27, 1988 in this matter, 

should read "F.R.App.P. 8(a)" instead. Third, the phrase "would 

have the equal opportunity" in the third sentence in footnote 57 

should read "would not have the equal opportunity" instead. 

-1-



Accordingly, on its own initiative under F.R.Civ.P. 60(a), 

the Court now AMENDS and SUPERSEDES the original Opinion nunc pro 

tunc with the attached Amending and Superseding Opinion, which re-

flects these changes and no more. 

The Order entered, and preliminary injunction issued, on July 

7, 1988 in connection with the Opinion is unaffected by these 

changes and shall remain in full force and effect, consistent with 

the limited remand. Moreover, this Court was not given jurisdic-

tion to reissue the Order, or the preliminary injunction, under 

the limited remand. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed, 

as soon as the Amending and Superseding Opinion is entered, to 

return this matter to the Fifth Circuit forthwith for disposition 

of the pending appeal. 

New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of July, 1988. 

7 .0F4M, 

UNITED svfflts DISTRICT JUDGE