Barrera v. Wheeler
| Decision Date | 28 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 20566.,20566. |
| Citation | 441 F.2d 795 |
| Parties | Anna BARRERA et al., Appellants, v. Hubert WHEELER, Missouri State Board of Education, J. Warren Head, Dale M. Thompson, Mrs. True Davis, Jack Webster, Elston J. Melton, W. Clifton Banta, Sidney R. Redmond and F. Burton Sawyer, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Louis C. DeFeo, Jr., Jefferson City, Mo., and Thomas M. Sullivan, Downey, Sullivan & Fitzgerald, Edward L. Fitzgerald, Kansas City, Mo., for appellants.
Harry D. Dingman, Kansas City, Mo., and Leo Pfeffer, New York City, Kuraner, Oberlander, Dingman, Brockus & Lowe, James B. Lowe, Kansas City, Mo., for appellees.
L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert V. Zener, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Wilmot R. Hastings, Gen. Counsel, Harry J. Chernock, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Theodore Sky, Atty., Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D. C., of counsel, for United States Commissioner of Education, amici curiae.
Before MATTHES, Chief Judge, Mr. Justice CLARK,* and LAY, Circuit Judge.
Appellants include both school children who attend nonpublic schools in the State of Missouri and their parents. The latter sue in their own behalf and also as next friends of the children. They commenced this action April 6, 1970 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri against Hubert Wheeler (then) Commissioner of Education of the State of Missouri and all eight members of the Missouri State Board of Education. The suit was brought individually and on behalf of all members of a class of persons throughout the state of Missouri who are educationally deprived children attending nonpublic schools in the state. Appellees were sued both as individuals and in their official capacities.
In the complaint filed in the district court, appellants alleged that they had been, and were being, deprived of benefits due them under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. §§ 241a-241m, 242-244 (hereinafter the Act), and the Regulations promulgated thereunder. They asserted that appellees' refusal to channel federal funds received under Title I of the Act to nonpublic Missouri schools denied them their constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; that appellees acted under color of state law and that their actions were in violation of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The jurisdiction of the district court was invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3).
On the basis of these contentions, appellants sought, inter alia, declaratory relief establishing their right to receive the fair benefits of the Act, an injunction restraining appellees from continued violations of the Act, and an order directing appellees to render an accounting of the funds received and expended from 1966 through 1969. They also requested that approximately $13,000,000 alleged to have been wrongfully denied them since the operation of the Act in 1966, be awarded to a court-appointed trustee who would be charged with the administration and distribution of this amount for the benefit of deprived children enrolled in nonpublic schools in Missouri.
On August 31, 1970, following certain pretrial procedures, but prior to a hearing on or consideration of the claim for relief, the district court, on motion of appellees, dismissed the action without prejudice. The dismissal was predicated on two grounds: (1) that appellants had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and (2) that the federal court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the case because it involved unsettled questions of state law which should initially be decided in the state courts. Appellants have appealed from the order of dismissal, contending that the district court was in error on both grounds.
It appears that this is a case of first impression presenting novel and unsettled questions of the interpretation and application of Title I of the Act and the remedies thereunder. We decided, therefore, after the appeal was submitted, to invite the United States Commissioner of Education to file an amicus curiae brief. He accepted the invitation and has filed an objective and informative brief. Only appellees have filed a brief in response.
Before reaching the specific issues presented by this appeal, we think it appropriate and beneficial to briefly review the purpose and operation of Title I of the Act. Congressional intent in enacting Title I was to grant financial assistance to local educational agencies to enable them to provide special services to meet the particular needs of educationally deprived children in school attendance areas having high concentrations of children from low income families. See 20 U.S.C. § 241a, "Congressional declaration of policy." The maximum grant which a local educational agency is eligible to receive for a fiscal year is governed by a statutory formula. See 20 U.S.C. § 241c(a) (2). To receive benefits under Title I, the local educational agency must apply to its state educational agency, delineating the programs and projects in which it intends to use the funds. The state agency may then approve or disapprove the application subject to the criteria set forth in the statute and regulations. 20 U.S.C. § 241e; 45 C.F.R. § 116.34.
In order to participate in the program the state educational agency must submit an application to the United States Commissioner of Education, providing satisfactory assurance that it will approve only those applications from the local agencies which comply with the requirements of Title I.1 The application also must contain assurances that the state agency will require each local educational agency to perform the obligations assumed by it in its approved applications for grants; that it will adopt fiscal control and fund accounting procedures which will assure the proper handling of the moneys paid to the state; that it will make periodic reports to the Commissioner evaluating the effectiveness of projects utilizing Title I funds; and that it will make such other reports as the Commissioner may require including "a disclosure of any allegations of substance which may be made by local educational agencies or private individuals or organizations of actions by State or local educational agencies contrary to the provisions of Title I of the Act or the regulations * * *." 45 C.F.R. § 116.31(g).
The United States Commissioner of Education is charged with the administration of the Act and is authorized to make such regulations as he finds necessary to carry out its provisions. 20 U.S.C. § 242(b). However, in the administration of the program, the Commissioner deals with the state educational agencies rather than with the local agencies and their student populations. Where the Commissioner finds that there has been a failure to comply substantially with the assurances given by the state educational agency as required in order to participate in the benefits, the Commissioner has the duty and authority, after taking the proper statutory procedures, to withhold the funds from the state educational agency. 20 U.S.C. § 241j. If the state is dissatisfied with the Commissioner's action in withholding funds for noncompliance or with the Commissioner's initial decision in disapproving a state educational agency's application for participation in the program, judicial review of the Commissioner's determination is afforded the state under 20 U.S.C. § 241k.
With these considerations in mind, we turn to the specific issues before us.
The district court ruled, and appellees contend, that the dismissal of the action was required, because appellants failed to exhaust administrative remedies. However, in this connection appellees concede that it is not necessary for appellants to exhaust the administrative remedies, if any, afforded by the State of Missouri.
Rather, the question is whether appellants must exhaust administrative remedies in the United States Office of Education2 before their claim is ripe for adjudication in the federal courts. Appellants vigorously contend that they are not required to exhaust administrative remedies, because neither the Act itself, nor the Regulations promulgated thereunder, provide for any such remedies.
An examination of the Act reveals that the only remedy for noncompliance with the requirements of Title I is the withholding of funds from the state agencies as provided for in 20 U.S.C. § 241j. Ancillary to his responsibility under this section, the Commissioner has promulgated several regulations relating to the procedure to be followed when such action is contemplated. Section 116.52(a), Title 45, C.F.R., restates the provisions of § 241j. Section 116.52(b) provides:
Section 116.31(g), Title 45, C.F.R., further provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hobbs v. Thompson
...1970, 397 U.S. 82, 90 S.Ct. 788, 25 L.Ed. 2d 68; Harman v. Forssenius, 1965, 380 U.S. 528, 85 S.Ct. 1177, 14 L.Ed.2d 50, Berrera v. Wheeler, 8 Cir. 1971, 441 F. 2d 795; Hall v. Garson, supra, 430 F.2d at Courts have long recognized that abstention is particularly inappropriate in an overbre......
-
Wamble v. Bell
...to the "apparently endless legal battle" over this statutory program. Questions about Title I have been addressed in Barrera v. Wheeler, 441 F.2d 795 (8th Cir.1971); Barrera v. Wheeler, 475 F.2d 1338 (8th Cir.1973); Wheeler v. Barrera, 417 U.S. 402, 94 S.Ct. 2274, 41 L.Ed.2d 159 (1974); Mal......
-
Barrera v. Wheeler
...law. This court held these findings to be erroneous and reversed and remanded the case to the district court for trial. Barrera v. Wheeler, 441 F.2d 795 (8 Cir. 1971). Upon remand of the case plaintiffs filed an application for preliminary injunction on October 12, 1971. In a pretrial order......
-
State ex rel. School Dist. of Hartington v. Nebraska State Bd. of Ed.
...in the public schools. The defendants actually seek a declaration that the federal act itself is unconstitutional. See Barrera v. Wheeler, 441 F.2d 795 (8th Cir.). Although that issue is not presented in this case, we believe it appropriate to make the following observations concerning the ......