HERDT v. CIVIL CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA et al

Filing 47

ENTRY ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 46 Motion for Relief from Judgment is DENIED. See Entry for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 9/26/2011. (LBT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION
BRUCE HERDT,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE CIVIL CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE,
)
INDIANA, THE COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE
)
CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA, RON
)
GROOMS, NATHAN SAMUEL, MIKE SMITH, ED )
ZASTAWNY, KEITH FETZ, CONNIE SELLERS,
)
BARBARA WILSON, and MAYOR THOMAS R.
)
GALLIGAN,
)
)
Defendants.
)

4:10-cv-140-WGH-TWP

ENTRY ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
I.

Introduction
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from

Judgment filed August 26, 2011. (Docket No. 46). Defendants have not filed a
response.
II.

Legal Standard
Plaintiff filed his Motion for Relief From Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b) allows relief from a final
judgment or order based, in pertinent part, on mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
or excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; or “any other reason that
justifies relief.”

III.

Analysis
Plaintiff requests relief from the court’s judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint. First, Plaintiff argues that the court improperly relied on
the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Political Action Conference of Illinois v. Daley,
976 F.2d 335 (7th Cir. 1992), because: (1) the statute in this case is
substantially different from the statute in Daley; (2) there is a substantially
different disparity among the districts in this case than was present in Daley;
and (3) the issue in Daley involved a disparity based on ethnicity rather than
population. Despite Plaintiff’s concerns, the court is convinced that Daley is the
controlling case in the Seventh Circuit concerning the one-person, one-vote
doctrine, and that it stands for the proposition that a redistricting ordinance that
relies on current census figures is constitutionally sound.
Plaintiff also argues that the court “erred in suggesting that this matter be
deferred to the state courts.” (Motion for Relief from Judgment at 2). In this
respect, Plaintiff misunderstands the court’s ruling. The court did not “defer to
the state courts.” Plaintiff alleged in his Amended Complaint that it was
unconstitutional for the Common Council for the City of Jeffersonville (“Common
Council”) to use 2000 census figures to engage in redistricting when the
members of the Common Council were aware that there had been substantial
population growth in some of those districts since the 2000 census. The court
concluded that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint did not state a claim for relief
under the Constitution because use of the 2000 census figures did not violate

-2-

the Constitution (even if some of the districts’ population numbers had changed
dramatically since the most recent census). Only after finding that the Amended
Complaint did not state a claim under the Constitution did the court then
determine that any remaining state law issues were best left to be determined by
a state court.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that, because we must assume all facts in the
Amended Complaint are true, the court was precluded from granting Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss. What Plaintiff fails to realize is that one of the facts that is
alleged in the Amended Complaint is that Defendants used 2000 census figures.
Plaintiff argues that it was wrong for Defendants to use those figures when
redistricting. The court, relying on Daley as well as the Supreme Court’s
decision in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506
(1964), concluded that the use of the 2000 census figures was proper.
Consequently, even assuming all of the facts in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
are true, the court was warranted in granting the Motion to Dismiss.
IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment

is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
William G. Hussmann, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

Dated: September 26, 2011

-3-

Electronic copies to:
Michael A. Gillenwater
GILLENWATER LAW OFFICES
[e-mail]
Mickey Kevin Weber
WEBER & WEBER
[e-mail]

-4-