Filed: Jul. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 02, 2019
Summary: OPINION and ORDER JAMES D. PETERSON , District Judge . Both plaintiffs and defendants move to dismiss this case in light of Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the Supreme Court held that "partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts." No. 18-422, slip op. (June 27, 2019), at 30. Two issues remain. First, plaintiffs say that the dismissal should be without prejudice, Dkt. 316; defendants say it should be with prejudice, Dkt. 317. There is n
Summary: OPINION and ORDER JAMES D. PETERSON , District Judge . Both plaintiffs and defendants move to dismiss this case in light of Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the Supreme Court held that "partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts." No. 18-422, slip op. (June 27, 2019), at 30. Two issues remain. First, plaintiffs say that the dismissal should be without prejudice, Dkt. 316; defendants say it should be with prejudice, Dkt. 317. There is no..
More
OPINION and ORDER
JAMES D. PETERSON, District Judge.
Both plaintiffs and defendants move to dismiss this case in light of Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the Supreme Court held that "partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts." No. 18-422, slip op. (June 27, 2019), at 30. Two issues remain. First, plaintiffs say that the dismissal should be without prejudice, Dkt. 316; defendants say it should be with prejudice, Dkt. 317. There is no doubt that this case cannot succeed in federal court. But political questions are beyond the jurisdiction of federal courts, Rucho, slip op., at 7, and dismissals for lack of jurisdiction are not decisions on the merits, and thus such dismissals are always without prejudice, Bernstein v. Bankert, 733 F.3d 190, 224 (7th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed without prejudice.
Second, defendants express their intent to seek fees or costs. Statutory costs will be awarded to the defendants as the prevailing party and taxed by the clerk as provided under Rule 54(c)(1). Defendants have until July 15, 2019, to file a brief supporting their entitlement to fees (but not the amount). Plaintiffs have until July 29, 2019, to respond. Each side is limited to 20 pages. The court will set a schedule to determine the amount of fees after it decides whether defendants are entitled to them.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, Dkt. 316, is GRANTED. Defendants' motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, Dkt. 317, is DENIED.
2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
3. Defendants have until July 15, 2019, to submit a bill of costs to the clerk of court; plaintiffs may file any opposition to the bill of costs by July 29, 2019.
4. Defendants may have until July 15, 2019, to file a motion for fees. Plaintiffs may have until July 29, 2019, to respond.
BY THE COURT:
/s/________________________________________
KENNETH F. RIPPLE
Circuit Judge
/s/________________________________________
WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH
District Judge
/s/________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge