298 F.Supp. 203 (D.Conn. 1968), Civ. 12624, Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Bd. of Ed.
|Docket Nº:||Civ. 12624|
|Citation:||298 F.Supp. 203|
|Party Name:||Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Bd. of Ed.|
|Case Date:||September 04, 1968|
|Court:||United States District Courts, 2nd Circuit, District of Connecticut|
Jonathan W. Lubell, of Lubell & Lubell, New York City (Stephen L. Fine, Westport, Conn., on the brief), for plaintiffs.
Robert H. Rubin, Sp. Corp. Counsel of City of Norwalk, South Norwalk, Conn., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DENYING PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
TIMBERS, Chief Judge.
Plaintiffs move for a temporary restraining order to prevent defendant from closing the Nathaniel Ely School, South Norwalk, Connecticut, pending determination of their motion for a preliminary injunction in this class action. Their motion is based on the pleadings, supporting affidavits, briefs and oral argument of counsel on September 3, 1968. After due consideration, the Court holds that plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied. In addition, pursuant to Rule 65(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., the Court orders that the trial of the action on the merits be advanced and consolidated with the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order accordingly is denied.
Plaintiffs Norwalk Core (Core), Roodner Court Fair Rent Association (Association) and two minor children allege that defendant Norwalk Board of Education (Board), while committed to racial integration in the schools and cognizant of the important advantages of the neighborhood school concept, nevertheless has preserved neighborhood public elementary schools only in middle class and upper middle class white neighborhoods. It is alleged that the Board 'has intentionally abandoned or destroyed and permitted to lie unused' public elementary schools in the low income Black and Puerto Rican neighborhoods. This, it is claimed, constitutes a double standard denying the class which plaintiffs claim to represent the right to attend an integrated neighborhood school and compelling them to be transported into white neighborhoods. That the busing operates in one direction only is said to be a denial of equal protection of the law under the guise of racial integration.
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment holding this discriminatory practice unconstitutional; a permanent injunction prohibiting the maintenance of white neighborhood schools without at the same time instituting a Black neighborhood school policy; and a permanent mandatory injunction to compel the Board to produce a Black neighborhood school policy for approval by the Court.
The Board denies all the allegations except those which attribute to it a policy of promoting racial integration; and the Board alleges special defenses, including standing, failure to state a claim, lack of jurisdiction, unconstitutionality of relief sought, administrative discretion, and failure to exhaust remedies available under Connecticut law.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP