Lewis v. Ascension Parish Sch. Bd., 09–30971.

• Decision Date: 03 November 2011
• Docket Number: No. 09–30971.,09–30971.
• Citation: 662 F.3d 343,274 Ed. Law Rep. 26
• Parties: Darrin Kenny LEWIS, Sr., Individually and as Natural Tutor of His Minor Children, A and B, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. ASCENSION PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

274 Ed. Law Rep. 26

662 F.3d 343

Darrin Kenny LEWIS, Sr., Individually and as Natural Tutor of His Minor Children, A and B, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.ASCENSION PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 09–30971.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 3, 2011.

Jill Leininger Craft, Law Office of Jill L. Craft, L.L.C., Baton Rouge, LA, Robert Ryland Percy, III (argued), Percy, Stromberg, Bush & Lanoux, Gonzales, LA, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Robert L. Hammonds, Pamela Wescovich Dill (argued), Hammonds & Sills, Baton Rouge, LA, Jeffery Paul Diez, Gonzales, LA, for Defendant–Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this equal protection case, Darrin Lewis appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the Ascension Parish School Board in Louisiana. The district court rejected Lewis's claim that the School Board's student assignment plan, formulated to address school population changes while “maintaining the district's unitary status,” was impermissibly race-based and discriminatory against minority elementary, middle, and high school students zoned for East Ascension High School. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. Under the state of this record, we cannot determine whether the district's plan must be subjected to strict or rational basis scrutiny. Further factual development is required.

Background

The Ascension Parish School District operates four high schools in Southeast Louisiana—Donaldsonville High School on the west bank of the Mississippi River,¹ and East Ascension High School, Dutchtown High School, and St. Amant High School on the east bank. Since at least 1972, the District has assigned students to these schools through an attendance-zone-based “feeder plan,” whereby specified elementary schools “feed” into specified middle schools, which in turn “feed” into one of the high schools. This organization allows students to matriculate together to middle school and high school.

In 2004, a federal district court dismissed the District's longstanding desegregation case and declared the District unitary after finding that all vestiges of the prior compulsory dual school system had been eliminated to the extent practicable.² The District was thereafter able to assign students within the school district as necessary pursuant to its authority under Louisiana Revised Statute § 17:81, but the District maintained its pre-unitary status feeder plan.

In 2006, the enrollment of Dutchtown Middle School, a Dutchtown High School feeder school, rose to over 1,000 students and caused severe overcrowding. No other East Bank middle school had more than 730 students enrolled. Consequently, the District's “Growth Impact Committee” was charged with developing a plan that would “address the growth with minimal impact on residents;” “ensure equal facilities and instructional quality for all children;” “attain enrollment maximums” established for the elementary, middle, and high school levels; and “maintain unitary status.” Superintendent Donald Songy and district staff also began exploring various re-zoning options. According to Superintendent Songy, the District sought to move approximately 450 students from Dutchtown Middle School, and thus out of Dutchtown High School's feeder zone, to other East Bank schools with capacity for growth.

Scott Duplechein, the “demographics application specialist” with the District's Construction and Planning Department, originally prepared three alternative plans—Options 1, 2, and 3—using enrollment data from the District's “Edulog” software. According to Superintendent Songy, Edulog was used to “geographically code all students actually enrolled in the school system based on their physical residential addresses and to project the statistical effects of various rezoning options.” From input during public hearings held by the Growth Impact Committee, the District also considered Options 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f—variations on Option 2—and a “Prairieville Option,” ³ all of which were formulated based upon Edulog data provided by Duplechein. Ultimately, the Ascension Parish School Board, which governs the District, narrowed its consideration down to Options 1, 2, 2f, and 3.

Summarizing Duplechein's proposals, Superintendent Songy put together a document entitled “Statistical Analysis of Options 1, 2, 2f and 3” and presented it to the School Board for consideration. The document listed the current enrollment, percentage of African–American students, and percentage of at-risk students at each school in the district, then projected the enrollment, percentage of African–American students, and percentage of at-risk students at each school under each of the four options.⁴ These data were generated from Edulog.

At its January 15, 2008 meeting, School Board member Troy Gautreau discussed the School Board's redistricting efforts and, according to the meeting minutes, told the School Board and audience that “the criteria most concentrated on was [sic] maintaining our current unitary status with the Department of Justice and moving the least amount of kids as possible.” The School Board thereafter voted to adopt Option 2f. Option 2f moved Duplessis Primary from the Dutchtown feeder zone to the East Ascension feeder zone, assigned two brand new primary schools to each of the high school feeder zones, and re-drew attendance zones so that students from the Dutchtown feeder zone and the St. Amant feeder zone were moved to the East Ascension feeder zone.

Procedural History

Shortly after the adoption of Option 2f, Appellant Lewis, the father of two black schoolchildren assigned to East Ascension's feeder zone both pre– and post-Option 2f, filed this suit against the Appellee School Board in Louisiana state court. Individually and on behalf of children “A” and “B,” Lewis brought, inter alia, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for violations of his children's Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection.⁵ Lewis claimed that the School Board's “actions since the construction of Dutchtown High School⁶ and in the adoption of Plan 2f were taken to ensure that East Ascension High School [and its feeder schools] would maintain a disproportionately large non-white minority population, leaving the remaining two East Bank schools as predominantly white.” He further alleged that, because Option 2f placed a disproportionate number of at-risk students⁷ in the East Ascension feeder zone, Option 2f “would ensure that the non-white minority students at East Ascension High School [and in its feeder system] would not, now and in the future, be afforded educational opportunities equal to those available to the students at either Dutchtown High School or St. Amant High School.”⁸ Lewis does not suggest that at-risk students are a suspect class for equal protection purposes. His claim is that minority students are being discriminated against based upon their race by a disproportionate influx of at-risk students into their schools.

The School Board removed the action to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Lewis responded but did not cross-move for summary judgment. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation to grant the motion. Relevant to this appeal, the magistrate judge found that Lewis lacked standing to pursue claims on behalf of child A but did have standing as to child B. Further, the court found that, though Lewis's § 1983 claims based upon Option 2f's implementation were timely, his claims based upon the 2002 modification of the District's feeder plan⁹ were prescribed. Finally, the court refused to apply strict scrutiny to the District's adoption of Option 2f. The court found the plan facially race-neutral and that Lewis had not presented competent evidence of discriminatory motive by the School Board or disparate impact resulting from Option 2f. The magistrate judge determined that Option 2f satisfied rational basis review because the District had a legitimate government interest in alleviating school overcrowding. Lewis appeals.

Standard of Review

The operative pleading was styled a “Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment.” The district court considered evidence outside the pleadings in granting the School Board's motion and treated it as a motion for summary judgment. “This court reviews the summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as the district court.” DePree v. Saunders, 588 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir.2009) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate if “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). “On review of a grant of summary judgment, all facts and inferences must be construed in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” E.E.O.C. v. Agro Distrib., LLC, 555 F.3d 462, 469 (5th Cir.2009) (citation omitted).

Discussion

We address each appealed issue—standing as to child A, prescription of Lewis's claims based upon the 2002 feeder plan modification, and whether Option 2f violates the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause—in turn.

A. Standing

The magistrate judge held that Lewis lacked standing to pursue claims on behalf of child A because, while Lewis produced a judgment and letters of tutorship indicating that he was confirmed as child A's natural tutor on June 2, 2009, he presented no evidence that he was child A's tutor at the time suit was filed on March 14, 2008.

We note that child A indisputably has standing as the party affected by the alleged wrongful redistricting. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 571, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2142 n. 5, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). The problem is that child A, as a minor, lacks capacity to sue under Article 683 of the Louisiana Code of...