LAVERGNE v. BRYSON
3:11-cv-07117
| D.N.J. | Dec 16, 2011Background
- Plaintiff Eugene Martin LaVergne, pro se and with suspended admission, seeks an order to show cause and a three-judge panel to hear challenges to congressional apportionment.
- Plaintiff asserts the constitutionality of the current House representation system and the Electoral College, seeking preliminary injunctions, mandamus, and declaratory relief under Local Rule 65.1.
- Court notes plaintiff’s lack of showing justifying expedited resolution and the issues concern an old federal statute and potential constitutional amendment, awaiting standard motion cycle.
- Section 2284(a) contemplates three-judge panels for apportionment challenges, but §2284(b) requires screening by the assigning judge to determine necessity.
- Court discusses standing concerns given plaintiff’s status and the broader national impact of redistricting decisions, and finds pro se status and prior suspension troubling for effective representation.
- Ultimately, the court denies the order to show cause, denies convening a three-judge panel, and dismisses the complaint, closing the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an order to show cause should be granted. | LaVergne argues expedited resolution is necessary to address apportionment issues. | Court should withhold expedited relief absent clear, specific showing per Rule 65.1. | Denied. |
| Whether a three-judge panel is required under 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). | § 2284(a) mandates a three-judge court for apportionment challenges. | Panel is not automatically required; screening under § 2284(b) is necessary and may deny. | Denied; three-judge panel not required here. |
| Whether plaintiff has standing to pursue nationwide apportionment challenges. | LaVergne seeks to vindicate a general constitutional issue affecting voting rights. | Plaintiff’s standing is questionable, given the scope and identity of affected parties and personal status. | Denied; standing questioned. |
Key Cases Cited
- Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713 (1962) (three-judge panel not automatically required; screening variant)
- Morrill v. Weaver, 224 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (context on panel requirements and screening)
- Saint Landry Parish Sch. Bd. v. United States, 601 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1979) (three-judge panel not required if insubstantial or meritless claim)
- Clemons v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 710 F. Supp. 2d 570 (D.D.C. 2010) (courts’ discretion regarding expedited proceedings and panel requirements)