Joint Motion of Plaintiff-Appellees and Dallas Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellees to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction Requests for Stay of Entz and Wood

    TRLG-SAN_ANTONIO Tego . 2229408 Jog 6:90 15:12 P.01 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

LULAC, et al., 

Plaintiff-Appellees, 

VE. NO. 90-8014 

MATTOX, et al., 

* 
 
%
 

# 
* 

* 
¥ 

¥ 
% 

Defendant~Appellants. 

JOINT MOTION OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES AND 

DALLAS PLAINTIFF~INTERVENOR-APPELLEES TO DISMISS 
FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION REQUESTS FOR STAY OF 

ENTZ AND WOOD 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

3 Plaintiff-appellees and Dallas Plaintiff-intervenor- 

appellees (hereinafter "appellees") present as an initial matter 

a concern about this Court's jurisdiction to hear the Requests for 

Stay that Defendant-intervenor-appellants Entz and Wood have filed. 

Appellees do not present this initial matter in an attempt to delay 

but rather because it may eliminate the need for further 

consideration of those two requests. If this Court finds that it 

has jurisdiction to hear the Requests for Stay of Entz and Wood, 

Appellees request permission to file further briefs in response to 

those Requests. If necessary, Appellees will file further briefs 

promptly. 

2. In support of this response on jurisdictional issues, 

Appellees would show the Court the following: 

3. Appellees attach the following exhibits to this response: 

 



  

TRLA-SAN_ANTONIO TEL N0.2229408 Jan. 6,90: 15212 P.02 

A. Lower court's Order of March 6, 1989 concerning the 

intervention of Entz and Wood in their individual capacities only. 

B. State of Texas Office of Court Administration 

records of the terms of incumbent district court judges. The terms 

of Entz and Wood expire in 1992. 

C. Motion to Intervene of Wood. She was elected in 

1988 to a four year term. 

a LUWSLE WWULL BB AUVELAL FAQ WVAUMYL VI Jallualy <&, 

1350, which only applies to the 1990 election cycle, 

4. On March 6, 1989, the lower court permitted Defendant- 

Inder wen mapper tans Bol vy and Wound Lo Intervene as defendants in 

this case. The lower court clearly allowed them to intervene in 

their individual capacities only. Exhibit A at 1%, 

Db. Mullhur Enlu nus Wuud wsuuhu slsmhine dumimg wha 1000 

sYombiom URIS, JL). lic: eo’ bamioe bleak wpdamw dee BUBB. - Bot. 00.05. MN 

at 772 (Ente 104th diseriet court), at 7/0 (Wood 127Lh disliicl 

court); Exhibit C at 2 (Wood admitoc that che achieved a fsur yaar 

tearm of office in 1988. In other worde, hor current term does not 

end until 1992.) 

6. Entz and Wood seek a stay to prevent the interim order, 

Exhibit D, from going into effect. As individuals, neither Entgz 

nor Woods has standing to appeal the validity of the lower court’s 

  

this Court has found that diotrict courte Judges de not have 

any place in this litigation jn their official capacities; if thay 
have any standing at all, it ie only ae individuals. LULAC v 
Clements, 853 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1989). "Asc govornment officials,   

[district court judges] have no legally protectible interest in 
redistricting." 1d. at 188. 

 



interim plan. X interim plan "applies ono the 1990 State 

District Court Judicial Elections in the nine target counties at 

issue in this case.” Exhibit D at 7-8. Since neither Entz nor 

wood seeks election in 1990, neither has "such a personal stake in 

the outcome of the controversy" about the interim plan to have 

standing to pursue this stay. Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 

(1962).° 

  

THEREFORE, Appellees respectfully request that this Court 

dismiss the Requests for Stay of Defendant-intervenor-appellees 

Entz and Woods because they do not have standing. In the 

allesnaldve, LL Lhe Cousl Lldude Lhalt LIL hae Jucledlclivu, 

Appellees iwepucllully seyuesl peiwmleslun Lu [lle furlhes bLilels 

on the issues that Entz and Woods have raised in their briefs in 

cuppoxt of tho Ragquaoto for Rtay and in thaoir Appoal. If tha Court 

finds that it has jurisdiction, Appellees will file further briefs 

promptly. 

Dated: January 6, 1990 

  

The Attorney General, who has standing to pursue this stay, 
has not done so. 

since neither Entz nor Wood seeks office under the interim 
plam, meishev is added by ia in amy vay. In addiaism &: 
Sapuiving eham 26 peansing, €his means that ekhey vill pate ks 
licopucully Januy ed Ly Ll.e lube. Lau warsloa * ¥.. wvilica wuvadeo I Licey 

cannot demonstrate the senond element nf the requiremants for a 

stay application. Uniced Staces v bpayvlor universicy medical 
Center, 711 F.2d 38 (5th Cir. 1983). 

3