560 F.Supp. 876 (E.D.Ark. 1983), LR-C-82-866, Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School Dist. No.1
|Citation:||560 F.Supp. 876|
|Party Name:||LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants.|
|Case Date:||April 13, 1983|
|Court:||United States District Courts, 8th Circuit, Eastern District of Arkansas|
P.A. Hollingsworth, Philip E. Kaplan, John M. Bilheimer, Janet L. Pulliam, Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiff.
Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, Little Rock, Ark., Friedman & Koven, Chicago, Ill., for Pulaski County Special School District No. 1.
W.H. Dillahunty, Little Rock, Ark., for North Little Rock School Dist. and Bob Lyon, John Ward, Judy Wear, Leon Barnes, Marianna Gosser, and Steve Morley (North Little Rock Board of Education).
David L. Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., for State of Ark.
Nelwyn Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., for Arkansas State Bd. of Educ. and Wayne Hartsfield, Walter Turnbow, Harry A. Haines, Jim Dupree, Dr. Harry P. McDonald, Robert L. Newton, Alice L. Preston, Jeff Starling and Earle Love (Members of State Board of Education).
Stephen Curry, Little Rock, Ark., for Grainger Williams, Richard A. Giddings, George A. McCrary, Buddy Raines and Dale Ward (Members of Board of Education of Pulaski County Special School District No. 1).
WOODS, District Judge.
A number of motions to dismiss filed in this action are now ripe for determination. The State Board of Education and its individual members (hereinafter State Board) seek dismissal on the grounds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and alternatively on the ground that the State Board is not a proper party to grant any of the relief requested. The North Little Rock School District and its individual board members (hereinafter North Little Rock District) as well as the Pulaski County Special School District and its individual board members (hereinafter Pulaski County Special District) likewise assert that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The State of Arkansas also seeks dismissal of all allegations against it due to its asserted Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
In determining whether or not plaintiff's complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a claim for relief, all of the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true and the motion to dismiss must be denied if under any set of facts...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP