The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-40197•Lee, et al v. Jefferson County, TX
00-40197Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitMar 13, 2001
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40197
Summary Calendar
ALVIN LEE; DIANA LEE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS, Commissioners Court,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:00-CV-48
--------------------
March 13, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Allen and Diana Lee, residents of Beaumont, Texas, appeal
the district court’s order denying their motion for a preliminary
and permanent injunction to halt the Jefferson County (Tex.)
Commissioners’ Court from authorizing the issuance of $55 million
in certificates of obligation for a public entertainment complex
in Beaumont.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that the Commissioners’ actions did not violate the
Lees’ First Amendment right to petition the Government for
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 00-40197
-2-
redress of grievances, because there is no constitutional right
to petition for a municipal initiative election, or their
Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. See White v. Carlucci,
862 F.2d 1209, 1211 (5th Cir. 1989); Citizens’ Right to Vote v.
Morgan, 916 F. Supp. 601, 607-08 (S.D. Miss. 1996); Dobrovolny v.
Moore, 126 F.3d 1111, 1113 (8th Cir. 1997). Even if the Lees had
shown that the Commissioners violated their First Amendment
rights within the context of the State-created election process,
see Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 424-25 (1988), they made no
serious effort to establish any of the other criteria for
obtaining either a preliminary or permanent injunction. See
Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991); Amoco
Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12 (1987).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.