Fisher v. Tucson School Dist. No. One
| Decision Date | 27 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-3378,79-3378 |
| Citation | 625 F.2d 834 |
| Parties | Roy and Josie FISHER, next of kin of Elizabeth Fisher, Boyd and Elizabeth Lewis, next of kin of Elizabeth, Ellen, Warren, and Jeff Lewis; Lloyd D. and Virginia Hall, next of kin of Kenneth and Lloyd D. Hall; and George and Joyce Brown Hutton, next of kin of Mondre Hutton; all on behalf of any persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee, v. TUCSON SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE; Tucson School District Number One Board of Education and its Individual Members, Leba Wine, Soleng Tom, Mitchell Vavich, Helen Haffley, and Katie Dusenberry; and Thomas Lee, Superintendent of Tucson School District Number One, Defendants-Appellees, and Sidney L. Sutton, Sally J. Sutton, and Sidney L. Sutton and Sally J. Sutton as Parents, Natural Guardians and next friend of Sean Sutton; John R. Centeno, Mary Katherine Centeno and John R. Centeno and Mary Katherine Centeno as Parents, Natural Guardians and next friend of Sandra Katherine Centeno and James Lee Centeno; Librada G. Ruiz and Librada G. Ruiz as Parent, Natural Guardian and next friend of Andres L. Ruiz; Sidney Taize and Sidney Taize as Parent, Natural Guardian and next friend of Jonathan Taize, Lisa Taize and Joshua Taize, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants. Sidney L. SUTTON, Individually and on Behalf of his Wife and Minor Children, Appellant, and Maria Mendoza, Individually and on behalf of Stephen Mendoza, a Minor; Theresa Trujillo, Individually and on behalf of Albert Trujillo, Joe Trujillo, and David Trujillo, Minors; Alberto Sanchez, Individually and on behalf of Jaime Sanchez, Ana Celis Sanchez, John Sanchez, Ernest Sanchez, George Sanchez, and Betty Sanchez, Minors; and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Objectors-Appellees, and Julia O. Flores, Billie Gutierrez, Theresa Medina, Betty M. Granillo, Carol Cruz-Popkin, Barney Paul Popkin, Carmen P. Urrutia, Manuel Alvarado, Carolyn Hackworth, Gloria Hagler, Johnny Randolph-Kelly, Thelma B. Manriq |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Edmund D. Kahn, Tucson, Ariz., for appellants.
J. M. Brammer, Jr., Tucson, Ariz., John R. Moore, Washington, D. C., Morris J. Baller, San Francisco, Cal., William J. Maledon, Phoenix, Ariz., argued, for appellees; Rubin Salter, J. Wm. Brammer, Tucson, Ariz., on brief.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Before CHOY and SNEED, Circuit Judges, and EAST, * District Judge.
This is a companion case to Mendoza et al. v. Tucson Unified School District Number 1, 623 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1980), in which we affirm the District Court's approval of a stipulated settlement to a school desegregation action. Pursuant to that stipulation of settlement, the principal parties subsequently reached agreement on modifications and extensions of the original desegregation plan. Sutton, et al., a group of white parents opposed to involuntary school busing, appearing as intervenors in Fisher, challenged portions of the agreement to modify the plan. The Suttons appeal from the District Court's May 11th order approving the Phase II modifications to the desegregation plan, and from the Court's June 8th order denying their renewed motion for certification as class representatives of a class opposed to busing.
We agree with the District Court that the motion was untimely made. However, we find that the Suttons have no standing to appeal either of the orders. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
This appeal arises out of the same facts as does Mendoza, 623 F.2d 1338. Mendoza, District Court No. 74-204, and Fisher, District Court No. 74-90, were pending companion causes in the District Court, and in 1977, they went to trial as consolidated class actions. On June 5, 1978, the District Court ruled in the plaintiffs' favor in both causes. Additional parties were allowed by the District Court to intervene in the cases prior to trial on the merits: the United States Department of Justice, on the plaintiff side in both actions, and Sutton, et al., appellants here, on the defendant side in this cause (action on behalf of the Black class).
A desegregation plan offered by the District was found by the Court to be constitutional on August 11, 1978, and a settlement of all issues in the case was approved by the Court on August 31, 1978. The stipulation of settlement contained substantive and procedural provisions to expand the desegregation plan beyond that approved for the 1978-79 school year (the plan approved by the Court on August 11, 1978). These substantive portions of the settlement imposed several requirements: It required the School District to examine the enrollment at certain specified schools and to alter student assignments so as to reduce the minority enrollment below 50 percent; it required the District to examine enrollment at certain other schools and make recommendations as to whether the schools should be closed, replaced, etc.; and it required that the graduates of certain elementary schools be assigned to junior high schools with no more than 50 percent minority enrollment.
Procedurally, the settlement directed the School District to formulate student assignment plans to meet these requirements and submit them to counsel for the class plaintiffs and the United States. If the parties plaintiff found the proposals unacceptable, counter proposals could be offered. If, after discussions, the parties were able to agree upon a plan, it would be submitted to the District Court for its approval. If no agreement could be reached, the issues would be submitted to the Court for resolution.
On May 2, 1979, pursuant to the stipulation of settlement, the parties presented to the Court a stipulation agreeing to a plan to meet the requirements of the original August 31, 1978 settlement. The District Court found the stipulated plan to be constitutional, fair, and equitable, and entered its approval on May 11, 1979.
The Suttons raised their objections before the District Court and assert them in this appeal. The Suttons claim that the plan is unconstitutional, illegal, involuntary, and otherwise improper. They also object to denial of class certification and denial of their petition to intervene in the Mendoza action (suit on behalf of the Mexican-American class) as representatives of a class opposing busing. In light of our disposition of the appeal, we do not reach the merits of these objections.
For the Suttons to have standing to prosecute this appeal, they must both satisfy the Article III constitutional requirements of federal court jurisdiction and be within the prudential limitations the judiciary has placed on entry to the federal courts. 1 Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2204, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). First, in order to satisfy Article III, the plaintiff must show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the challenged action. Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99, 99 S.Ct. 1601, 1607, 60 L.Ed.2d 66 (1979). This constitutional minimum requires that the plaintiff must have suffered or be threatened with a "distinct and palpably injury to himself." Warth v. Seldin at 501, 95 S.Ct. at 2206. The personal nature of the injury is central to the standing requirement. Second, the prudential limitations imposed by the judiciary prevent, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, bringing "questions of broad social import where no individual rights would be vindicated." Gladstone, Realtors, 441 U.S. at 100, 99 S.Ct. at 1608; Schlesinger v. Reservists to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People Organized for Welfare and Employment Rights (P.O.W.E.R.) v. Thompson
...D'Amico v. Schweiker, 698 F.2d 903 (7th Cir.1983); Myron v. Chicoine, 678 F.2d 727, 730 (7th Cir.1982); Fisher v. Tucson School Dist. No. One, 625 F.2d 834, 837-38 (9th Cir.1980); Vander Jagt v. O'Neill, 699 F.2d 1166, 1177-78 (D.C.Cir.1983) (concurring opinion). It must in short be fairly ......
-
Liddell v. State of Mo.
...the agreement on its terms. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2206, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975); Fisher v. Tucson School District No. 1, 625 F.2d 834, 837 (9th Cir.1980). Even assuming that the State has standing to raise such a question, the district court found that the parties......
-
Nodleman v. Aero Mexico
...threatened "injury in fact." Id., 426 U.S. at 38-39, 44, 96 S.Ct. at 1924-25, 1927, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976); Fisher v. Tucson School District No. One, 625 F.2d 834, 837 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiffs Alvin Nodleman and Stockhammer have alleged "injuries in fact," insofar as they have alleged tha......
-
Keene v. Meese
...societies," see Valley Forge, supra, 454 U.S. at 472, 102 S.Ct. at 758, is not a basis for standing. Fisher v. Tucson School District No. 1, 625 F.2d 834, 835 (9th Cir.1980). Neither Laird nor United Presbyterian Church has any application to the instant case. Plaintiff herein is not, contr......