Plas v. Austin

811 F.2d 607, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 36439, 1986 WL 18455
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedDecember 29, 1986
Docket85-1892
StatusUnpublished

This text of 811 F.2d 607 (Plas v. Austin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Plas v. Austin, 811 F.2d 607, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 36439, 1986 WL 18455 (6th Cir. 1986).

Opinion

811 F.2d 607

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Gerald PLAS, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly
Situated and Thomas W. Jones, on Behalf of Himself
and all Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Richard AUSTIN, Individually and as Secretary of State of
the State of Michigan; James J. Blanchard as Governor of
the State of Michigan; The Supreme Court of the State of
Michigan; The State Senate of the State of Michigan; The
State House of Representatives of the State of Michigan,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 85-1892.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 29, 1986.

Before ENGEL, KRUPANSKY and NELSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Gerald Plas and Thomas Jones (the plaintiffs), proceeding pro se and purporting to represent a class of persons similarly situated, appealed from the district court's order dismissing their complaint challenging the constitutionality of Michigan's electoral structure.

The district court dismissed the plaintiff's action, concluding that, insofar as the plaintiffs' suit was not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, the plaintiffs had failed to state a violation of any cited constitutional provisions and that as a matter of law the use per se of single member electoral districts did not contravene federal law.

Having reviewed the record in its entirety together with the briefs submitted by the parties, this court is of the opinion that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint for the reasons articulated in its memorandum opinion issued in support thereof. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Petz v. Hertzberg
811 F.2d 607 (Sixth Circuit, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
811 F.2d 607, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 36439, 1986 WL 18455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plas-v-austin-ca6-1986.