¶1J. Minos Simon, Lafayette, La., for appellant.
¶2William P. Schuler, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Louisiana, Thomas M. Brahney, III, Dorothy D. Wolbrette, New Orleans, La., Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Henry J. Roberts, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., for appellees.
¶3Before GEWIN and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges, and CHOATE, District Judge.
¶5This case, like Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 89 S.Ct. 1843, 23 L.Ed.2d 404 (1969), and Martone v. McKeithen, 413 F.2d 1373 (5th Cir. 1969), arises out of investigations conducted by the Labor-Management Commission of Inquiry established by statutes of the State of Louisiana. See La.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 23:880.1-23:880.18 (Supp.1969). Appellant Jenkins sued for fifteen million dollars, as did Martone, and sought to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1988 (1964).
¶6The Martone case and the Supreme Court case of Jenkins v. McKeithen, supra, were pending when the case now before us was submitted to this court. We then felt and now conclude that the decision in this case should be controlled by the decisions in those two cases. The district court and the parties considered the legal issues in this ease and in Mar-tone to be substantially identical.1 There *1034is one difference in that injunctive relief was not sought in this case but was sought by Martone. The remand in Martone concerned only “that portion of the case relating to the plaintiff’s request for an injunction.” The only error here specified by the appellant Jenkins is the ruling of the district court dismissing his complaint. The reason given for remand in Martone does not exist here, and, therefore, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
¶7Affirmed.