Defendant-Intervenor Judge Wood's Reply to Motion for Interim Relief and Stay Pending Appeal

    PorRTER & CLEMENTS 
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 

INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

  MAILING ADDRESS: 
700 LOUISIANA, SUITE 3500 

P. O.BOX 4744 

EVELYN V. KEYES HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-2730 
H 3 5 

(713) 226-0620 
OUSTON, TX 77210-4744 

  

TELECOPIER (713) 228-1331 

TELEPHONE (713) 226-0600 

March 11, 1993 

e424L7129;2 

Mr. John Neil, Clerk VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

U. S. District Court 
Midland-Odessa Division 

200 E. Wall, Room 316 
Midland, Texas 79702 

Re: No. MO-88-CA-154; League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434, et 

al., Plaintiffs, Houston Lawyers’ Association, Plaintiff-Intervenors v. Attorney General 
Dan Morales, State Defendants and Judge Sharolyn Wood, et al., Defendant-Appellant; 
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Midland Odessa 

Division 

Dear Mr. Neil: 

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced case, please find the original and two copies 

of Defendant-Intervenor Sharolyn Wood’s Reply to Motion for Interim Relief and Stay Pending 

Appeal. 
\ 

Please place your file mark on the enclosed extra copy and return to me for my file. 

By copy of this letter, all counsel of record are being notified of this filing. Thank you 
for your attention to this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

Susp 
Evelyn V. Keyes 

EVK:taw 

enclosures 
7630C:\DOCS\EVK\WOO027001\DC.F 

 



THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN § 

CITIZENS (LULAC), et al., 

Plaintiff- Appellees, 
V. 

JIM MATTOX, Attorney General 
of the State of Texas, et al., 

NO. MO-88-CA-154 
Defendant-Appellants, 

and 

Harris County District Judge 

SHAROLYN WOOD, 

O
n
 

LO
R 

LO
R 

LO
R 

LO
R 

LO
R 

LO
R 

LO
R 

LO
R 

LO
R 

LO
N 

LO
R 

CO
R 

LO
» 

O°
 

LO
R 

Defendant-Appellant. 

DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR JUDGE WOOD’S REPLY TO 

MOTION FOR INTERIM RELIEF AND STAY PENDING APPEAL 
  

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 

COMES NOW Defendant-Intervenor Harris County District Judge Sharolyn Wood 

("Judge Wood") and files this Reply to Motion for Interim Relief and Stay Pending Appeal. 

Judge Wood would respectfully remind the Court that it is without jurisdiction to entertain 

plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors’ motion since all proceedings in this Court have been stayed 

pending resolution of all appeals by order of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. A copy of the 

stay order is attached as Exhibit "A." Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors are aware that 

jurisdiction over this case lies in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and not in this Court, as 

their motion and the letter from counsel for Dallas District Judge Entz, attached to their motion 

as Exhibit "B," attest.  



  

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant-Intervenor Harris County District 

Judge Sharolyn Wood respectfully requests that the Court dismiss plaintiffs’ and plaintiff- 

intervenors’ Motion for Interim Relief and Stay Pending Appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Respectfully submitted, 

PORTER & CLEMENTS, L.L.P. 

     
  

( kiki 
: =z cr BE — 

7 J < FE em = mrs cy mg > 

2 J. Eugene Clements 

> Evelyn V. Keyes 
ks 3500 NCNB Center 

P.O. Box 4744 
Houston, Texas 77210-4744 

Phone: (713) 226-0600 

Fax: (713) 228-1331 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT-INTERVENOR- 

DEFENDANT JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD 
OF COUNSEL: 

Michael J. Wood 
Attorney at Law 

440 Louisiana, Suite 200 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Telephone: (713) 228-5101 

Facsimile: (713) 223-9133 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that on this ells, of March, 1993, a true and correct copy of the 
above and foregoing document has been mailed to all counsel of record by first class United 

States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

William L. Garrett Robert H. Mow, Jr. 

Garrett, Thompson & Chang Hughes & Luce 

8300 Douglas, Suite 800 2800 Momentum Place 

Dallas, Texas 75226 1717 Main Street 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Rolando Rios 

Southwest Voter Registration Walter L. Irvin 

& Education Project 5787 South Hampton Road 
201 N. St. Mary’s, Suite 521 Suite 210, Lock Box 122 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 Dallas, Texas 75232-2255 

Sherrilyn A. Ifill Susan Finkelstein 
NAACP Legal Defense and Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. 

Educational Fund, Inc. 201 N. St. Mary’s #600 

99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor San Antonio, Texas 78205 

New York, New York 10013 
Renea Hicks 

Gabrielle K. McDonald Special Assistant Attorney General 

301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2050 P. O. Box 12548 
Austin, Texas 78701 Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 

Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, P.C. Seagal V. Wheatley 

3301 Elm Street Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher & 

Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 Wheatley, Inc. 

711 Navarro, Sixth Floor 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Za Ufa. 
Evelyk V. Keges 
  

7630C:\DOCS\EVK\WO0O027001\059 

 



    TAN. 11 '38 12:24 STH cr {fi noLa P. 201 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPRALY S CLURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT FILED 

0 1 tw JAN 17 1990 
NO. 90-8014 GILBERT F. GANUGHEAL 

am LE a ae a CLERK 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, 

COUNCIL NO. 4434, 

sg Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

VS. 

WILLIAM P. IFMENTS, ETC., ET AL., 

Defendants, 

JIM MATTOX, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

GE SH GE ED GED WED WEP WT WE TC Ge Sw ne a —— a= a— 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 
Northern District of Texas 

Before GEE, DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM: 

IT IS ORDERED that appellants’ motions for stay pending 

appeal are GRANTED. We do so in order that the Stata of Texas 

may be allowed a reasonable opportunity to 2<4dress the problem 

presented by the holding of the district court entered November 

8, 1989, that the state system of selecting judges is invalid as 

violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Sce Chisom v,   

Roener, 853 F.2d 1136 (5th Cir. 1984). 

That holding, if sustained on appeal, will require an 

organic and wholesale review and reconstitution of the Texas 

judicial selection system, a task which should be addressed and 

EXHIBIT A } Z fi fi Pass w l/Th— 
> Y [a py 

  

    

 



   
.B@2 0 

JAN, 11 SO 18:55 ETH CIF Pos 

carried out by the state’s elected representatives, rather than 

by the federal courts. Only if 1t becomes apparent that the 

state is unwilling to act with measured and appropriate speed in 

thie regard should our courts intervene. When the State has had 

a reasonable period within which to address the problem presented 

in a special session of the Legislature, the Court will entertain 

a motion to dissolve. That has not yet occurred; when it does, 

we will be amenable to a motion to dissolve the stay which we 

enter today. In the meantime, on our own motion, we EXPEDITE and 

consolidate the appeals from the district court’s orders of 

November 8, 1989, and January 2, 1990.1 

It is further ORDERED that the motion of appellant Judge 

Sharolyn Wood, etc., for leave to consolidate this appeal with 

case number 89-6226 is DENIED. Intend, on 1lts own motion the 

court consolidates this appeal with case number 90-9003. 

It is further ORDERED that the motion of appellee Jim 

Mattox, etc., for leave to strike the notice of designation of 

independent counsel and the emergency application for stay filed 

on behalf of George S. Bayoud, Jr. is DENIED. 

  

3 This appeal being founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a){1) and 
1292(b), we need not concern ourselves about the motion pending 
before the trial court (denominated a "Rule 59(e)" motion in 
certain of the filings) toc modify that court’s interlocutory 
injunctive order. Rule 59(e) has no application to interlocutory 
orders, and the notice of appeal vests jurisdicticn over this 
order in our court. See Coastal Corp. v. Texas Eastern Corp-, 
869 F.24 817 (5th Cir. 1989).