Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

359 F.2d 67

Docket No. 22740.

Simon v. Landry

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 11, 1966.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1966-04-11

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1969

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Reynolds v. Sims · Rorick v. Board of Comm'rs of Everglades Drainage Dist. · 238 F. Supp. 997 - Bianchi v. Griffing

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1966-04-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*68J. Minos Simon, Phil Trice, Simon, Trice & Mouton, Lafayette, La., for appellant.

¶2Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, La., William P. Schuler, Asst. Atty. Gen., New Orleans, La., Bertrand De Blanc, Dist. Atty., for appellees.

¶3Before JONES and BELL, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5The appellant, J. Minos Simon, was plaintiff in the district court. As a qualified and registered voter in the Third Ward of the Parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana, he seeks injunctive and other relief against an alleged malapportionment of the members of the Lafayette Parish Police Jury, and the members of the Lafayette Parish School Board, among the ten wards of the Parish. The district court held, in denying motions to dismiss, that, since the parties had agreed that the Louisiana statutes, LSA-R.S. § 33:1222 and § 33:-1224 were not unconstitutional, there was Federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C.A. § 1343(4) and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, and that there was no necessity for a three-judge court. On a further hearing the district court determined that the equal protection one man-one vote principle of Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, does not extend to subordinate governmental in-strumentalities such as the Police Juries of Louisiana Parishes. We do not, at this time, consider or pass upon this question. The districting of the Police Jury wards was done by the Police Jury and was in the nature of legislative action. The action was pursuant to a State statute of general application and was not one affecting a particular municipality or district. Rorick v. Board of Com’rs of Everglades Drainage Dist., 307 U.S. 208, 59 S.Ct. 808, 83 L.Ed. 1242; Bianchi v. Griffing, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1965, 238 F.Supp. 997. It is asserted by the appellant that the action has resulted in depriving him of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law. As such, the action was a statute or order made by a commission. This being so, we conclude that a single judge district court was without jurisdiction and that a three judge court should be convened. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2281, 2284. In order that such a court may be convened to hear and determine the cause, the judgment of the district court will be vacated and the cause remanded.

¶6Reversed and remanded.

/359/f2d/67 · .json · Public domain