Hoots v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

• Decision Date: 08 December 1971
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 71-538.
• Citation: 334 F. Supp. 820
• Parties: Dorothy HOOTS, individually and as mother of her children Janelle Hoots and Jamie Hoots, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

334 F. Supp. 820

Dorothy HOOTS, individually and as mother of her children Janelle Hoots and Jamie Hoots, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 71-538.

United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

December 8, 1971.

R. Stanton Wettick, Jr., Neighborhood Legal Services, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Alfred C. Maiello, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Hallenberg, Allegheny City Board of School Directors and Pennsylvania State Board of Education, and W. Deming Lewis.

Frederick N. Frank, Asst. Atty Gen. of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Lee A. Donaldson, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., for Allegheny Intermediate Unit and Hallenberg.

OPINION

WEBER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs' Complaint contains allegations that:

(a) In preparing and adopting the school reorganization plans defendants intentionally and knowingly created racially segregated school districts.

(b) In preparing and adopting the school reorganization plan the defendants failed to take steps to eliminate racial imbalance.

(c) In preparing and adopting the school reorganization plans the defendants failed to consider and make findings with respect to the racial characteristics of the new districts which they were creating.

(d) In preparing and adopting the school reorganization plan the defendants compelled the formation of an economically deprived school district which does not have the resources to provide education opportunities commensurate with the adjoining school districts and thus deprives plaintiffs of equal educational opportunities.

All defendants filed motions to dismiss but that of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been withdrawn.

The remaining defendants allege in support of their motions:

1. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action.

We have no doubt that the allegations of deliberate creation of a racially segregated school district state a cause of action, and that the remaining allegations are ancillary and supportive of this claim. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 1954; Taylor v. Board of Education of City School District of New Rochelle, 294 F.2d 36 2nd Cir., 1961; Brewer v. School Board of City of Norfolk, 397 F.2d 37 4th Cir., 1968.

While defendants argue that plaintiffs' complaint does not contain a short simple statement of the cause of action, we do not believe that it is subject to dismissal because it pleads so much material that is evidentiary.

2. The corporate parties defendant, being political subdivisions of the Commonwealth are not "persons" subject to suit under the Civil Rights Act and are not proper parties defendant.

While the right to maintain suit for monetary damages against municipal corporations or political subdivisions has been denied under the Civil Rights Acts this denial has been limited to relief for monetary damages and has not been applied where the relief sought is injunctive in nature. See: Service Employees International Union A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. County of Butler, 306 F.Supp. 1080 W.D.Pa., 1969.

Moreover, this complaint avers that the suit is brought for injunctive relief to redress a deprivation of a right granted by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. As was recently stated by the Court of Appeals for this circuit:

"While the Civil Rights law is rightfully stressed in the complaint, violation of the Fifth, Sixth and especially the Fourteenth Amendments are firmly a part of plaintiffs' cause and are never discarded. The language of the complaint could have perhaps been sharper in spots but that is no dispositive Federal practice error. As it stands the complaint makes the clear charge that John Scher was not accorded due process under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution." (p. 744.) Scher v. Board of Education of Town of West Orange, 424 F.2d 741 3rd Cir., 1970.

As cited in the above opinion:

"`A case brought under the Civil Rights Act should not be dismissed at the pleading stage unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would be entitled to no relief under

...