Case Name: Alfred E. EHM, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the METROPOLITAN RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-24
Citations: 251 F. App'x 930
Docket Number: No. 06-51148
Parties: Alfred E. EHM, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the METROPOLITAN RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 930–932

Head Matter:
Alfred E. EHM, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the METROPOLITAN RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-51148
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 24, 2007.
Alfred E. Ehm, pro se.
Howard P. Newton, Matthews & Branscomb, San Antonio, TX, for DefendantAppellee.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alfred E. Ehm appeals, pro se, from the dismissal, without prejudice, of his pro se civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim. The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal is reviewed de novo. E.g., In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir.2007).
Ehm maintains: the members of the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority of San Antonio (Board) are selected by an unconstitutional method. The Board is composed of 11 members appointed in the following way: the San Antonio City Council appoints five members, the mayors of the municipalities within the Transit Authority appoint two members, the Commissioners Court of Bexar County appoints three members, and the majority of the Board appoints one member. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 451.501(a), (e), 451.502(a), (e) (Vernon 2006).
Ehm contends: the appointment of Board members rather than the general election of Board members by San Antonio citizens violates his rights under the Equal Protection Clause and the "one person, one vote" principle arising under that Clause. Ehm's contentions are without merit. The Board was created by state statutory authority, which provides for appointment rather than election to the Board. Id. The statute gives the Board power to perform essentially administrative rather than legislative functions. See Id. § 451.058; City of Atlanta v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 636 F.2d 1084, 1089 (5th Cir. Unit B Feb.1981). Accordingly, this system of appointment does not violate equal protection or the "one person, one vote" principle. See Sailors v. Bd. of Educ., 387 U.S. 105, 111, 87 S.Ct. 1549, 18 L.Ed.2d 650 (1967); City of Atlanta, 636 F.2d at 1089. No authority, constitutional or otherwise, requires the Board to elect its members. See City of Atlanta, 636 F.2d at 1089; Byrd v. City of San Antonio, 587 F.2d 184, 186 (5th Cir.1979).
To the extent that Ehm asserts the Board violated equal rights of citizens through taxation without representation, this claim fails as well. The Board has the power to levy taxes only with the prior approval by a vote from San Antonio citizens. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 451.401 & 451.402 (Vernon 2006).
For the first time on appeal, Ehm contends: the Board's method of appointing its members violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This court need not address issues not raised in district court. Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999).
Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting the Board's motion to dismiss Ehm's complaint. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
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.