UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-50854
Summary Calendar
_____________________
JOVITA CASAREZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
OSCAR GONZALEZ, JR.; FRANK CORONADO,
Intervenors-Appellants,
versus
VAL VERDE COUNTY, a political subdivision of
the State of Texas; MARIA ELENA CARDENAS,
County Clerk of Val Verde County,
Defendants-Appellees,
D’WAYNE JERNIGAN; MURRY M. KACHEL;
STATE OF TEXAS,
Intervenors-Appellees.
_____________________
No. 98-51183
Summary Calendar
_____________________
JOVITA CASAREZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
OSCAR GONZALEZ, JR.; FRANK CORONADO,
Intervenors-Appellants,
versus
VAL VERDE COUNTY, ETC.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
D’WAYNE JERNIGAN; MURRY M. KACHEL,
Intervenors-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(DR-96-CV-108)
_________________________________________________________________
September 2, 1999
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jovita Casarez, Oscar Gonzalez, Jr., and Frank Coronado,
appeal the adverse summary judgment on their claims against Val
Verde County and its Clerk, Maria Elena Cardenas, for violations of
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, and the First
and Fourteenth Amendments. They also appeal the award of costs and
damages to D’Wayne Jernigan and Murry M. Kachel.
In the November 1996 general election, Jernigan was elected
Sheriff of Val Verde County, defeating Gonzalez; Kachel was elected
County Commissioner, defeating Coronado. On 4 December, Gonzalez
and Coronado filed suit in state court, contesting the results of
the election. Later in December, Casarez, a registered voter in
Val Verde County, filed suit in federal district court against the
County and its Clerk, alleging that her vote, as well as those of
other Hispanics in the County, were diluted unlawfully by
approximately 800 absentee ballots cast by claimed non-residents
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
- 2 -
(military personnel stationed at Laughlin Air Force Base and their
spouses and dependants) under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
Absentee Voters Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973ff.
The federal court preliminarily enjoined Kachel and Jernigan
from taking office and abated the federal court proceedings pending
the outcome of the state court election contest. Casarez v. Val
Verde County, 957 F. Supp. 847 (W.D. Tex. 1997). After the state
court ruled in June 1997 that Gonzalez and Coronado had failed to
establish that illegal votes were cast or had affected the outcome
of the election, the federal court promptly dissolved the
preliminary injunction. Casarez v. Val Verde County, 967 F.Supp.
917 (W.D. Tex. 1997). In February 1998, the appeal from the state
court judgment was abandoned.
The federal district court subsequently granted summary
judgment for defendants, holding that the state court’s decision
that the 800 absentee ballot votes were not cast illegally
precluded establishing unlawful vote dilution. Casarez v. Val
Verde County, No. DR-96-CA-108 (W.D. Tex. 17 July 1998)
(unpublished). Later, the court awarded costs and damages to
Jernigan (the salary he would have received if not wrongfully
enjoined from taking office for approximately six months) and costs
to Kachel (Kachel was not awarded damages because he declined to
take office); Jernigan and Kachel’s requests for attorneys’ fees
were denied. Casarez v. Val Verde County, 27 F. Supp. 2d 749 (W.D.
Tex. 1998).
Appellants contend that, in granting summary judgment, the
- 3 -
district court erroneously relied on the outcome of the election
contest in state court and improperly refused to consider their
evidence in opposition to summary judgment. And, they contend that
the award of costs and damages should be reversed because there is
no factual or legal basis for it.
Based upon our review of the record and briefs, we conclude
that, concerning summary judgment, and for the reasons stated by
the district court in its above-cited and comprehensive opinion,
the district court did not commit reversible error on the evidence
issue and judgment was proper; and that the court did not abuse its
discretion in awarding costs and damages.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -