Lavergne v. Bryson, 092012 FED3, 12-1171

Docket Nº:12-1171
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:EUGENE MARTIN LAVERGNE, Appellant v. JOHN BRYSON, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce; JOHN GROVER, in his official capacity as the Director of the United States Census Bureau; KAREN L. HAAS, in her official capacity as the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives; JOHN BOEHNER, in his of
Judge Panel:Before: SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, District Judge
Case Date:September 20, 2012
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

EUGENE MARTIN LAVERGNE, Appellant

v.

JOHN BRYSON, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce;

JOHN GROVER, in his official capacity as the Director of the United States Census Bureau;

KAREN L. HAAS, in her official capacity as the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives;

JOHN BOEHNER, in his official capacity as the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives;

DANIEL INOUYE, in his official capacity as the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate;

JOSEPH BIDEN; in his official capacity as the President of the Senate;

DAVID FERRIERO, in his official capacity as the Archivist of the United States of America

No. 12-1171

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

September 20, 2012

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 14, 2012

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (No. 3-11-cv-07117) District Judge: The Honorable Peter G. Sheridan

Before: SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, District Judge [*]

OPINION

PER CURIAM

Eugene Martin LaVergne, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals an order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying his request to convene a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. § 2284 and dismissing his complaint. We summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

I.

LaVergne, a New Jersey citizen and registered voter, alleges in this suit that the method of congressional apportionment under 2 U.S.C. § 2a is unconstitutional. LaVergne asserts that the method violates (1) separation of powers, (2) the nondelegation doctrine, (3) the principle of "one person, one vote, " and (4) "Article the First, " an amendment to the United States Constitution proposed in 1789 that LaVergne asserts was ratified and is part of the Constitution. LaVergne sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction ordering the leaders of Congress to enact an apportionment plan consistent with Article the First's ratio of one member of Congress per 50, 000 citizens and ordering the Vice-President of the United States to count 15 electoral votes for New Jersey in the 2012 presidential election. The relief LaVergne sought would expand the House of Representatives from the 435-member size that has been statutorily set since the 1910s to over 6, 160 members.

On December 16, 2011, the District Court on its own denied LaVergne's application for a show-cause order and his request for a three-judge panel, and dismissed the case. LaVergne timely appealed. In this court, LaVergne moved for a preliminary injunction, an expedited appeal, and an expedited initial en banc review or panel review. This court denied the motions.

II.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the District Court's order dismissing the complaint is...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP