McNeese v. BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR COMMUN. SCH. DIST. NO. 187, Civ. A. No. 4868.

• Decision Date: 22 November 1961
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 4868.
• Citation: 199 F. Supp. 403
• Parties: Louis McNEESE, a minor, by Mabel McNeese, his mother and next friend, and Elouise Dickerson, a minor, by Charles Dickerson, her father and next friend, and Betty Wade and Judith Wade, minors, by Thelma Wade, their mother and next friend, and For those and all others similarly situated and who may become parties to this action, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 187 and Clarence D. Blair, County Superintendent of Schools for St. Clair County, Illinois, and Robert F. Catlett, Superintendent of Schools for Community School District Number 187, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois

199 F. Supp. 403

Louis McNEESE, a minor, by Mabel McNeese, his mother and next friend, and Elouise Dickerson, a minor, by Charles Dickerson, her father and next friend, and Betty Wade and Judith Wade, minors, by Thelma Wade, their mother and next friend, and For those and all others similarly situated and who may become parties to this action, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 187 and Clarence D. Blair, County Superintendent of Schools for St. Clair County, Illinois, and Robert F. Catlett, Superintendent of Schools for Community School District Number 187, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 4868.

United States District Court E. D. Illinois.

November 22, 1961.

Clayton R. Williams, Alton, Ill., and Rogers, Rogers, Strayhorn & Harth, Charles Jones, Jr., Chicago, Ill., Richard G. Younge, East St. Louis, Ill., for plaintiffs.

Oehmke, Dunham & Boman, East St. Louis, Ill., for defendants Bd. of Education and Robert F. Catlett.

JUERGENS, District Judge.

This class action was instituted by the minor plaintiffs, who appear by their parents and next friends. Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Illinois and reside within the Eastern District of Illinois.

Jurisdiction is founded on Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343(3), and authorized by Title 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

The amended complaint alleges that the minor plaintiffs are all Negro children, are eligible to attend public elementary schools in Community Unit School District No. 187, which schools are under the management and control of defendants; that the members of the class in behalf of which plaintiffs sue are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all individually before the Court, but there are common questions of law and fact involved, common grievances arising out of common wrongs, and common relief is sought for each plaintiff and each member of the class, and the plaintiffs fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class; that the defendants are presently maintaining and operating public schools in the area or areas of the respective jurisdictions in purported pursuance of the laws of the State of Illinois; that the defendants have adopted and pursued and are presently pursuing a policy, custom and practice in assigning children to the elementary public schools in accordance with "neighborhood school policy" or "attendance area policy," where children are compelled to attend schools in the attendance areas in which they reside and are not permitted to attend schools in any other place except in certain special circumstances not applicable to these plaintiffs; that the Chenot School was put into operation in 1957 and was planned and built and its attendance area boundaries were so drawn as to make it an exclusively Negro school in its student enrollment; that as a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the defendants' adoption and strict pursuance of the alleged "neighborhood school policy" or "attendance area policy", defendants have created and do maintain and operate racially segregated elementary schools and the minor plaintiffs are compelled to attend a racially segregated school by actions of the defendants herein; that prior to 1957 when the Chenot School was put into operation, Negro elementary school students residing in what is now the Chenot attendance area attended the Centreville School, where said Negro children were compelled to attend classes in the afternoon exclusively, while white children attended classes in the morning exclusively with the exception of certain slow white fifth and sixth grade students who attended classes all day; that when the Chenot School was put into operation, all or practically all of the children of elementary school age who resided in the Chenot attendance area were Negroes; that the manner in which the Chenot attendance areas were drawn resulted in making Chenot School an all Negro school in the student enrollment; that because of the crowded condition of the Centreville School, the Board of Education transferred all fifth and sixth grade classes at Centreville School to Chenot School; that these classes consisted of approximately 97% white and 3% Negro students; that these classes were kept and maintained intact at the Chenot School despite the fact that the children so involved were carried on the rolls as Chenot students and their teachers as members of the Chenot faculty; that as a result of the above and foregoing a situation of racial segregation and separate educational facilities was created and has been maintained by the defendants; that the conditions created continue to exist; that the defendants have failed and refused to desegregate the schools under their jurisdiction but act in such a manner to perpetuate the system of segregated schools and facilities; that by reason of the "neighborhood school policy" or "attendance area policy" as adopted and enforced by the defendants and as a result of the schemes, plans and contrivances of the defendants in drawing the boundary lines in the schools under their jurisdiction, the defendants have created and are maintaining and operating racially segregated public elementary schools in District No. 187 and the minor plaintiffs are assigned to and compelled to attend such racially segregated school by the acts of the defendants and consequently are denied the equal protection of law and equal opportunity for education to which they are entitled by reason of law; that requiring plaintiffs and their class to attend the segregated schools and educational facilities causes them to suffer and sustain irreparable injury and they will be irreparably harmed unless the defendants are enjoined by this Court; that any other relief to which plaintiffs could be remitted would be attended by such uncertainties and delays as to deny plaintiffs the substantial relief to which they are entitled; that plaintiffs have not exhausted any administrative remedies provided by the laws of the State of Illinois for the reason that the remedy there provided is inadequate to provide...