Gunter et al v. Bryant et al

Filing 72

ORDER denying 66 Motion for Leave to Permit Filing of Amicus Curiae Briefs; denying 68 Motion for Leave to Permit Filing of Amicus Curiae Briefs; denying 70 Motion for Leave to Permit Filing of Amicus Curiae Briefs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy Percy on 2/13/18. (bnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
JOHN GUNTER, JR., et al.
V.

PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17CV177-NBB-RP

PHIL BRYANT,
Governor of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO
PERMIT FILING OF AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS
The court has received three motions for leave to permit the filing of amicus curiae briefs
by Anna Little, a non-resident attorney who is not admitted to practice in this court. Docket 66,
68, 70. Local Uniform Civil Rule 83.1 provides the mechanism for appearing in this district.
An attorney must be licensed to practice in Mississippi and then follow the proper procedure to
be admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi. In the alternative, an out of state attorney may obtain local counsel and apply to
appear via pro hac vice admission. Anna Little has not followed either procedure for appearing
in this district.
Ms. Little’s improper appearance in this cause aside, the undersigned finds the proposed
briefs will not assist the court in making a determination in this matter. There is no rule that
defines a federal district court’s power to grant leave to file an amicus brief, but it is clear that
the “extent to which the court permits amicus briefing lies solely within the court’s discretion.”
U.S. v. Olis, 2008 WL 620520, *7(S.D. Tex March 3, 2008). “Whether to permit a nonparty to
submit a brief, as amicus curiae, is, with immaterial exceptions, a matter of judicial grace.” In
re Hal Wireless, Inc., 684 F.3d 581, 586 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Okoronkwo, 46 F.

3d 426, 435 (5th Cir. 1995)). The undersigned has reviewed the three proposed briefs and
concludes that the motions and briefing already filed with the court are sufficient to make a
determination. The proposed amicus briefs are not useful or otherwise necessary to the
administration of justice in this matter. Therefore, the motions for leave to file amicus briefs
(Docket 66, 68, and 70) are DENIED.
This, the 13th day of February, 2018.
/s/ Roy Percy
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE