MOTION to Convene Three-Judge Court by MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in support# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(lc, ) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
)
Attorney General of the
)
United States of America,
)
WAN J. KIM,
)
Assistant Attorney General,
)
Civil Rights Division, United States
)
Department of Justice, Washington, DC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No.
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONVENE THREE-JUDGE COURT
Plaintiff Middlesex County respectfully moves this Court for entry of an order
requesting the convening of a three-judge court. Defendants do not oppose the granting
of this motion. As grounds for this motion, plaintiff would show unto the Court that:
1. Plaintiff Middlesex County has filed this action pursuant to Section 4 of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1973b. Plaintiff’s
action seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court granting the County
an exemption from the special remedial provisions of the Voting Rights
Act.
2. A three-judge court is required under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act:
“A district court of three-judges shall be convened to hear and determine
the action.” See 42 U.S.C. §1973b.Page 2 3. Counsel for the defendants was contacted prior to the filing of the
complaint and this motion. Defendants do not oppose the convening of a
three-judge court or entry of the enclosed order.
4. A proposed order is respectfully submitted for the Court’s consideration.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court will grant this motion
and enter the attached order requiring the clerk of this Court to notify the Chief Judge of
the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that a three-judge court is
required to hear and determine this action.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ J. Gerald Hebert_____________
J. GERALD HEBERT
Attorney at Law
J. Gerald Hebert, PC
5019 Waple Lane
Alexandria, Va. 22304
(703) 628-4673 (O)
DC Bar No. 447676
Email: jghebert@comcast.net
Counsel for Middlesex CountyPage 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
)
Attorney General of the
)
United States of America,
)
WAN J. KIM,
)
Assistant Attorney General,
)
Civil Rights Division, United States
)
Department of Justice, Washington, DC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONVENE THREE-JUDGE COURT
This memorandum is respectfully submitted in support of the foregoing motion to
convene a three-judge court.
ARGUMENT
Plaintiff Middlesex County, Virginia, (“the County”) has filed this action pursuant
to Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1973b. Plaintiff’s
action seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court granting the County an exemption
from the special remedial provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
A three-judge court is required under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act: “A
district court of three-judges shall be convened to hear and determine the action.” See 42
U.S.C. §1973b.Page 4 In other cases recently brought before this Court by jurisdictions under Section 4
of the Voting Rights Act, orders have been entered granting motions to convene threejudge courts, and requesting the convening of a three-judge court. In such cases, threejudge courts have been convened to hear and determine the action. See, e.g., Essex
County, Virginia v. Gonzales, No. 06-1631 (D.D.C., Order entered October 2, 2006);
Botetourt County, Virginia v. Gonzales, No. 06-1052 (D.D.C., Order entered June 14,
2006); City of Salem v. Gonzales, No. 06-977 (D.D.C., Order entered May 31, 2006);
Augusta County, Virginia v. Gonzales, No. 05-1885 (D.D.C., Order entered October 7,
2005); City of Winchester v. Ashcroft, No. 00-3073 (D.D.C., Order entered February 5,
2001); Roanoke County, Virginia v. Reno, No. 00-1949 (D.D.C., Order entered October
26, 2000); Frederick County, Virginia v. Reno, No. 99-0941 (D.D.C., Order entered May
10, 1999); and City of Fairfax, Virginia, v. Reno, No. 97-2212 (D.D.C., Order entered
October 1, 1997).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff respectfully urges this Court to grant the
motion to convene a three-judge court. A proposed order is enclosed herewith.
For Plaintiff MIDDLESEX COUNTY:
/s/ J. Gerald Hebert_____
J. GERALD HEBERT
Attorney at Law
5019 Waple Lane
Alexandria, Va. 22304
(703) 628-4673 (O)
DC Bar No. 447676
Email: jghebert@comcast.netPage 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
)
Attorney General of the
)
United States of America,
)
WAN J. KIM,
)
Assistant Attorney General,
)
Civil Rights Division, United States
)
Department of Justice, Washington, DC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No.
ORDER
Plaintiff has moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2284 and 42 U.S.C. §1973b, that a threejudge court be convened to hear and determine this action for a declaratory judgment under
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act [#2]. According to the motion, the defendants do not oppose
the convening of a three-judge court. It appearing that the motion is well taken, it is this _____
day of June, 2006:
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion [#2] is granted. And it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall transmit a copy of this Order to the Chief
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2284(b)(1), so that a three-judge court may be convened.
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:07-cv-01485-TFH
Document 2
Filed 08/17/2007
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
)
Attorney General of the
)
United States of America,
)
WAN J. KIM,
)
Assistant Attorney General,
)
Civil Rights Division, United States
)
Department of Justice, Washington, DC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No.
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONVENE THREE-JUDGE COURT
Plaintiff Middlesex County respectfully moves this Court for entry of an order
requesting the convening of a three-judge court. Defendants do not oppose the granting
of this motion. As grounds for this motion, plaintiff would show unto the Court that:
1. Plaintiff Middlesex County has filed this action pursuant to Section 4 of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1973b. Plaintiff’s
action seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court granting the County
an exemption from the special remedial provisions of the Voting Rights
Act.
2. A three-judge court is required under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act:
“A district court of three-judges shall be convened to hear and determine
the action.” See 42 U.S.C. §1973b.
PDF Page 3
Case 1:07-cv-01485-TFH
Document 2
Filed 08/17/2007
Page 2 of 2
3. Counsel for the defendants was contacted prior to the filing of the
complaint and this motion. Defendants do not oppose the convening of a
three-judge court or entry of the enclosed order.
4. A proposed order is respectfully submitted for the Court’s consideration.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court will grant this motion
and enter the attached order requiring the clerk of this Court to notify the Chief Judge of
the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that a three-judge court is
required to hear and determine this action.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ J. Gerald Hebert_____________
J. GERALD HEBERT
Attorney at Law
J. Gerald Hebert, PC
5019 Waple Lane
Alexandria, Va. 22304
(703) 628-4673 (O)
DC Bar No. 447676
Email: jghebert@comcast.net
Counsel for Middlesex County
PDF Page 4
Case 1:07-cv-01485-TFH
Document 2-2
Filed 08/17/2007
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
)
Attorney General of the
)
United States of America,
)
WAN J. KIM,
)
Assistant Attorney General,
)
Civil Rights Division, United States
)
Department of Justice, Washington, DC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONVENE THREE-JUDGE COURT
This memorandum is respectfully submitted in support of the foregoing motion to
convene a three-judge court.
ARGUMENT
Plaintiff Middlesex County, Virginia, (“the County”) has filed this action pursuant
to Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1973b. Plaintiff’s
action seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court granting the County an exemption
from the special remedial provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
A three-judge court is required under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act: “A
district court of three-judges shall be convened to hear and determine the action.” See 42
U.S.C. §1973b.
PDF Page 5
Case 1:07-cv-01485-TFH
Document 2-2
Filed 08/17/2007
Page 2 of 2
In other cases recently brought before this Court by jurisdictions under Section 4
of the Voting Rights Act, orders have been entered granting motions to convene threejudge courts, and requesting the convening of a three-judge court. In such cases, threejudge courts have been convened to hear and determine the action. See, e.g., Essex
County, Virginia v. Gonzales, No. 06-1631 (D.D.C., Order entered October 2, 2006);
Botetourt County, Virginia v. Gonzales, No. 06-1052 (D.D.C., Order entered June 14,
2006); City of Salem v. Gonzales, No. 06-977 (D.D.C., Order entered May 31, 2006);
Augusta County, Virginia v. Gonzales, No. 05-1885 (D.D.C., Order entered October 7,
2005); City of Winchester v. Ashcroft, No. 00-3073 (D.D.C., Order entered February 5,
2001); Roanoke County, Virginia v. Reno, No. 00-1949 (D.D.C., Order entered October
26, 2000); Frederick County, Virginia v. Reno, No. 99-0941 (D.D.C., Order entered May
10, 1999); and City of Fairfax, Virginia, v. Reno, No. 97-2212 (D.D.C., Order entered
October 1, 1997).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff respectfully urges this Court to grant the
motion to convene a three-judge court. A proposed order is enclosed herewith.
For Plaintiff MIDDLESEX COUNTY:
/s/ J. Gerald Hebert_____
J. GERALD HEBERT
Attorney at Law
5019 Waple Lane
Alexandria, Va. 22304
(703) 628-4673 (O)
DC Bar No. 447676
Email: jghebert@comcast.net
PDF Page 6
Case 1:07-cv-01485-TFH
Document 2-3
Filed 08/17/2007
Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
)
Attorney General of the
)
United States of America,
)
WAN J. KIM,
)
Assistant Attorney General,
)
Civil Rights Division, United States
)
Department of Justice, Washington, DC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No.
ORDER
Plaintiff has moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2284 and 42 U.S.C. §1973b, that a threejudge court be convened to hear and determine this action for a declaratory judgment under
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act [#2]. According to the motion, the defendants do not oppose
the convening of a three-judge court. It appearing that the motion is well taken, it is this _____
day of June, 2006:
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion [#2] is granted. And it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall transmit a copy of this Order to the Chief
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2284(b)(1), so that a three-judge court may be convened.
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Third party AI contribution in government documents
Possible
Document content is reproduced directly from government sources. Some filings in our database may themselves contain AI-generated content submitted by third parties to government agencies.
Back to 
