UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 97-30361

_______________________

LOUIS JENKINS, also known as Woody Jenkins,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EDWIN W. OUSSE; RAYNELLA ORTEGO; ROBERT POCHE; SHERRY A. DELCAMBRE;

LONNIE JUNEAU; EVELINA H. SMITH; PAULA K . STEWART WILLIAM T.

JOHNSTON; ERNIE ROBERSON; ANGELA M. QUIENALTY; VIOLA G. R OBERTS;

RUBY KELLEY; SUE D. MANNING; PATRICIA B. SANDERS; GOLDA ENSMINGER;

LINDA S. LILLEY; NATHANIEL W. BANKSTON; JIMMIE R. HATTAWAY; LEA

MCGEHEE; TEDMUND P. SOIL EAU; EDNA HATTON; SUE REEVES; MILDRED L.

ADAMS ; MELISSA S. ESNEAULT; ANGIE ROBERTS; SAMUEL ALTOBELLO;

LORRAINE RICHARD; STEVEN BERNARD; STERLING C. DIAZ; JOHN S. ALLEN;

LILLIAMN H. FALLIN; WYNONA L. GRAVES; GEORGIA JOHNSON; SANDRA

THOMAS; DEBBIE WASKOM; LOUIS KELLER; FAYE PERRY; BETTY C. BALLAY;

Q UENTIN GUSTIN; JOANELL L. WILSON; LYNDA H. KILE; AUDREY

MCGLOTHLIN; KRISTI LANGTON; RI TA CRUM HORN; JANICE Z. HYMEL;

BARBARA BATES; ANNIE GRAVOIS; BETTY MADERE; JOHN A. MOREAU; SUE

THIBOD EAUX; ARLENE NORRIS; M. DEWAYNE WALL; JOHN RUSSELL; EARL

MORRIS; LINDA K. RODRIGUEZ; JOHN R. HICKS; CORBETT J. DOMINIQUE;

SANDRA PERKINS; GLADYS JOHNSON; VIRGINIA FRANKLIN; SYBIL B.

NEWS HAM; PEGGY HENDERSON; ANNE H. BENNETT; BARBARA M. CLARK; J.

ANDRUS BAROUSSE; GERALD W. HARRINGTON; KERMIT A. BOURQUE; LAWRENCE

E. BERGER ON; SAMUEL G. COUVILLION; RONALD L. NICHOLS; FRANCES N.

JOYNER; JOAN L. CARRAWAY; CURTIS A. WARREN; W. GARY LOFTIN; JAMES

R. ANDRUS; EUGENE DUNN; DEBBIE B. THERIOT; KATHY J. JOHNSON; BETTY

ANN GLADNEY; CLYDE R. WEBBER, JR.; OLLIE L. STONE; DOUG WELBORN;

EDNA BISHOP BROCK; DEBBIE D. HUDNALL; WALTER LEE; FAYE T. ELKIN; J.

ELRAY LEMOINE; PATRICK S. SAUNIER; J.G. DUPONT, JR.; ANN B.

WALSWORTH; JON A. GEGENHEIMER; CARLTON L. DUHON; O.C. GUILLOT;

VERNON H. RODRIGUE; STEVE H. CROOKS; SUE SANDERSON; LUCIUS W.

PATTERSON; CAROLUYN C. CALDWELL; LILLIAN R. BOYD; LOUIE BERNARD;

DALE N. ATKINS; BILL HODGE; SANDRA M. HARDIN; I.G. OLINDE; CAROLYN

J. RYLAND; JUDITH W. HUCKABY; RAMONA N. HAIRE; DOLLIE M. KNIPPERS;

LENA R. TORRES; CHARLES J. OUBRE, JR.; HERMAN NEWELL; EDMOND E.

KINIE R, JR.; HAROLD L. MONTEGUT, JR.; CHARLES JAGNEAUX; ALLEN J.

BLANCHARD, SR.; CLIFF DRESSEL; MALISE PRIETO; JOHN J. DAHMER; JAMES

A. KITCHEN; I. ROBERT BOUDREAUX; JOE A. BRANTLEY; RUSSELL R.

GASPARD; DONALD M. PERKINS; JONNY D. CRAIN; WINIFRED B. BRINKLEY;* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

2 THOMAS J. LEBLANC; KAY BOLDIN G; MARY NEIL MARCHIVE; DONALD E.

KELLEY,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(96-CV-2613)

_________________________________________________________________

May 12, 1998

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

In a previous opinion, we remanded this case for an

explanation by the district court concerning the evidence, if any,

that Appellant produced or had the opportunity to produce which

would show that certain of the appellees refused t o permit

inspection of precinct sign-in logs. Assertions of failure to

permit such inspections underlie Appellant’s only remaining claim

fo r violation of the motor-voter law, specifically 42 U.S.C.

§ 1973gg-6(i).

The district court responded by a memorandum opinion

entered December 31, 1997. In that order, the district court noted

that while its temporary restraining order was in effect, Appellant

had access to such precinct signature logs. After the court’s

November 27, 1996 ruling, Appellant alleged in a motion for3

reconsideration that he was denied acce ss to signature logs.

Appellant’s only evidence in the district court record consists of

affidavits relating to denials of access to sign-in logs in

December 1996. The district court concluded that Appellant had the

opportunity to produce such evidence before the court’s November 27

ruling, but Appellant did not do so.

Neither the district court nor this court can award

declaratory or injunctive relief for violations of federal law, in

this case 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(i), without timely proof of ongoing

or imminent violations. For this reason alone, the district court

did not err in denying Appellant’s request for relief. Appellant’s

pending motions to file supplemental briefs and to extend time to

file supplemental briefs are hereby DENIED as moot.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

.