McMillan v. Board of Education of State of New York, No. 901

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
• Writing for the Court: FRIENDLY, SMITH and HAYS, Circuit
• Citation: 430 F.2d 1145
• Parties: Larry McMILLAN et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, Mitchell Garlick et al., Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, and The Department of Education of the State of New York and Edward Nyquist as Acting Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, Defendants-Appellees.
• Decision Date: 03 August 1970
• Docket Number: Docket 34709.,No. 901

430 F.2d 1145 (1970)

Larry McMILLAN et al., Plaintiff-Appellant,
Mitchell Garlick et al., Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, and
The Department of Education of the State of New York and Edward Nyquist as Acting Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 901, Docket 34709.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued July 8, 1970.

Decided August 3, 1970.

John C. Gray, Jr., New York City (Betty Elder, New York City, and William B. Haley, Long Island City, of counsel), for appellants.

John DeWitt Gregory, New York, City, Community Action for Legal Services, Inc.

Reginald S. Matthews, Jamaica, N. Y., for appellants.

Marttie L. Thompson, New York City, MFY Legal Services, Inc., for appellant Garlick.

Phillip Weinberg, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of New

430 F.2d 1146

York, New York City, and Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen. and Mortimer Sattler, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellees

Before FRIENDLY, SMITH and HAYS, Circuit Judges.

FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge:

This appeal requires us to determine whether the claims under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment asserted in this action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and its jurisdictional implementation here relevant, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), with respect to § 4407 of the New York Education Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 16, are sufficiently substantial that the district judge should have asked for the convening of a court of three judges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 and 2284.

The procedural history, in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, is rather complex. The action was brought on behalf of three children, Larry McMillan, Steven Fournier and Teddy Sola, all of whom had been diagnosed as having suffered brain injuries. The defendants were the Board of Education of New York City; Bernard Donovan, then the City's Superintendent of Schools; Marcus S. Arnold, the City's Director of Education for the Physically Handicapped; the New York State Department of Education; and Edward Nyquist, the State's Acting Commissioner of Education. The complaint alleged that, as empowered by § 4404 of the State's Education Law,¹ New York City had instituted some 132 classes serving approximately 745 brain-injured children, but that some 309 such children

430 F.2d 1147

were on the waiting list and that children remained on this for substantial periods. The complaint then referred to § 4407, subd. 1 of the Education Law

§ 4407. Special provisions relating to instruction of certain handicapped children

1. When it shall appear to the satisfaction of the department that a handicapped child, who, in the judgment of the department can reasonably be expected to benefit from instruction, is not receiving such instruction because there are no adequate public facilities for instruction of such a child within this state because of the unusual type of the handicap or combination of handicaps, the department is authorized to contract with an educational facility located within or without the state, which, in the judgment of the department, can meet the needs of such child, for instruction of such child in such educational facility, and the department is further authorized to expend for such purpose a sum of not to exceed two thousand dollars per annum for each such pupil.

It alleged that Larry McMillan and Teddy Sola had been denied admission to the City's special classes for lack of available space; the complaint was less clear why Steven Fournier was not in a City class. But it did allege that all three plaintiffs had attended private schools; that the tuition was in the neighborhood of $3000 a year; and that their parents lacked the means to provide the $1000 required over and above the maximum state grant of $2000 permitted by § 4407.² The limit was alleged to deprive plaintiffs of their right to an elementary education in contravention of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs sought to maintain the suit as a class action on behalf of all persons similarly aggrieved by the City's failure to provide classes adequate for educable brain-injured children and all poor persons similarly aggrieved by the $2000 limit. The complaint sought temporary and permanent injunctions to prohibit the State Department of Education and the Acting Commissioner from enforcing the $2000 limit, as well as injunctions requiring the three City defendants to provide an adequate number of special classes and the usual accoutrement of declaratory relief. Since the request for injunctive relief against the State defendants was believed to fall within 28 U.S.C. § 2281, the plaintiffs asked that a court of three judges be convened.

The Department of Education and the Commissioner moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under F.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (2), and for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, F.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6). While these motions were sub judice, it was indicated to the court that the Board of Education had arranged to screen the three plaintiffs; as a result Steven Fournier was enrolled in a special class for brain-injured children and Teddy Sola in a regular class for the academic year 1969-70. The court's opinion tells us that Larry McMillan was "found ineligible for placement in a class for the brain-injured because he could not be safely managed in such a class and would cause a safety problem" and that his parents accepted this conclusion, but we find nothing about this in the record and at the argument there was some demur about it.

In any event the loss of two of the three plaintiffs precipitated a motion to intervene on behalf of two others, Ramon Rodriquez and Mitchell Garlick. We need not pause over Ramon since he was promptly placed in a special class for the brain injured, and the propriety of the denial of his motion to intervene is not contested. It was alleged that Mitchell Garlick was brain-injured, that he was excluded from a regular public school, that he had entered a private school where the tuition was $2500 a year, that the maximum state assistance

430 F.2d 1148

under § 4407 was now $1900, and that payment of the differential was a severe burden on his mother who had to support herself and four children out of a salary of $127 per week. The State opposed Mitchell's intervention on the basis of a report of the Board of Education showing that he was not brain injured but suffered from "mental retardation and from severe emotional disturbance." While the City maintains classes for Children with Retarded Mental Development (CRMD) and Mitchell had been placed in such a class, his adjustment was said to have been extremely poor, he was described as having engaged at times in dangerous and destructive behavior, and the Bureau of Child Guidance considered him too disturbed for a CRMD class placement. The court nevertheless granted his motion to intervene

The plaintiffs...