Opinion
No. 01-CV-0456-DRH.
August 29, 2001
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I. Introduction
On July 13, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a three-count Complaint against Madison County, the Clerk of Madison County, Mark Von Nida, the Illinois State Board of Elections and several of its members (Doc. 1). On August 22, 2001, upon motion by the Plaintiffs, the Court dismissed Count III of the original complaint and granted Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 18). In Count I of the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the reapportionment plan adopted by the Madison County Board on June 20, 2001 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it is not consistent with the required principle of "one person, one vote." In Count II, Plaintiffs allege that the reapportionment plan violates the Illinois Counties Code, 55 ILCS 5/2-3003, which sets forth the specific guidelines a county board must follow in adopting an apportionment plan.
On August 8, 2001, Defendants Madison County and Mark Von Nida filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, a motion to dismiss Counts I and III of the original complaint. Because Count III has been dismissed, the Court addresses Defendants' motion only as to Count I.
II. Judgment on the Pleadings
A party may move for a judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c). A motion for judgment on the pleadings is subject to the same standard as a RULE 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Northern Indiana Gun Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. City of South Bend, 163 F.3d 449, 452 (7th Cir. 1998) . Thus, the court must presume all well-pled allegations of the complaint as true. Miree v. DeKalb County, 433 U.S. 25, 27 n. 2 (1977) . In addition, the court must view those allegations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Northern Indiana, 163 F.3d at 452 . Dismissal is proper only if it appears "beyond a doubt that the [non-moving party] can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conely v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) .
III. Analysis
Defendants contend that because the apportionment plan adopted by the Madison County Board has a total population deviation under 10%, it is presumed to be valid and, therefore, Plaintiffs cannot prove a violation of Equal Protection. Under the Supreme Court's decisions on this issue, the Court cannot say that it is clear that no relief could be granted upon the facts alleged or any facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695 (1964); Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 (1969); Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (1983) . The Court, therefore, finds that Plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to survive Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings or to dismiss.
IV. Conclusion
The Court DENIES Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings or to dismiss (Doc. 11).
IT IS SO ORDERED.