Pride v. Community Sch. Bd. of Brooklyn, NY Sch. D.# 18

• Citation: 482 F.2d 257
• Decision Date: 18 June 1973
• Docket Number: No. 637,Docket 72-2371.,637
• Parties: Michael and Cynthia PRIDE, minors, by their mother and next friend Bulena Pride, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK SCHOOL DISTRICT #18, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

482 F.2d 257 (1973)

Michael and Cynthia PRIDE, minors, by their mother and next friend Bulena Pride, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK SCHOOL DISTRICT #18, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 637, Docket 72-2371.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued March 7, 1973.

Decided June 18, 1973.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

James I. Meyersohn and Nathaniel R. Jones, N. A. A. C. P., New York City (I. Frederick Shotkin and Delson & Gordon, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Alfred Weinstein, New York City (Norman Redlich, Corp. Counsel of the City of New York, and Stanley Buchsbaum, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Before LUMBARD, HAYS and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.

TIMBERS, Circuit Judge:

This appeal is from the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction sought by a group of parents of black and other non-white children residing in Tilden Houses, a public housing development in Brooklyn, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, to require the Community School Board for District No. 18 to assign their children to schools within the district in accordance with past practice.

After a two day hearing in the Eastern District of New York, Jacob Mishler, Chief Judge, an order was entered on November 13, 1972(1) finding no likelihood of success on the equal protection claims raised; (2) finding no irreparable harm from the denial of the preliminary injunction; and (3) refusing to rule on the alleged violations of local administrative procedure.

Under the applicable standards for review of the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction, and under the rules for refusal of pendent jurisdiction, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND FACTS

In view of the importance of the facts to the resolution of this controversy and in view of our limited scope of review of the district court's findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous, Fed.R. Civ.P. 52(a), we shall summarize here the controlling facts that provide the underpinning for the district court's conclusions of law which we affirm.

The center of the instant controversy is an eight-building public housing complex known as Tilden Houses, located in the predominantly black Brownsville section of Brooklyn. During the period from at least 1958 until 1971, the school-aged children residing in Tilden Houses were assigned to one of five public elementary schools in the nearby, predominantly white, Canarsie section of Brooklyn. The specific assignment depended on the address of the Tilden Houses building where the child lived. During that period, under the New York Education Law, the City Board of Education was responsible for the school assignments of New York City children.

In 1969, the New York City School Decentralization Law (Article 52-A) was enacted. Ch. 330, § 4 1969 N.Y. Laws, N.Y. Education Law, art. 52-A, § 2590 et seq. (1970). Under that statute, the great bulk of the authority for management of the City's pre-kindergarten, nursery, kindergarten, elementary, intermediate and junior high schools was allocated to the various community school districts to be established pursuant to § 2590-b(2) of Article 52-A. Included therein is the general power to "manage and operate the schools and other facilities under a district's jurisdiction," § 2590-e(4), which presumably contains the authority to assign students to particular schools within the district.

The resulting district lines placed the five schools to which Tilden Houses children formerly had been assigned in Canarsie's Community School District No. 18 (District 18).¹ Accordingly, a number of parents of Tilden Houses children scheduled to enter school in 1971 registered their children at the schools to which residents of their specific buildings formerly had been assigned. On May 24, 1971, however, District 18 entered into an agreement with Brownsville's Community School District No. 23 (District 23), the geographical boundaries of which included Tilden Houses, whereby Tilden Houses were to be zoned into District 23 for the school year beginning September 1971.² This agreement purportedly was effected in compliance with procedures established on March 10, 1971 by the Office of the Deputy Chancellor of the City school system in a document known as Special Circular No. 58.³

Word of this agreement led Mrs. Joan Boatright, a Tilden Houses resident, to check with the Central Zoning Unit, referred to in Circular No. 58, as to the proper school district for registration of Tilden Houses children. Mrs. Boatright was given a letter advising her of the procedures for inter-district zoning proposals, including the need for recommendation by the Central Zoning Unit. A handwritten postscript beneath the signature of John Dudley of the Central Zoning Unit⁴ read as follows: "The agreement for rezoning of the Tilden Houses were not plans recommended by the Central Zoning Unit." Relying on this and other assurances, several Tilden Houses mothers who, prior to the inter-district agreement, had registered their children for kindergarten in P.S. 244,⁵ reported at that school on the first day of the school year beginning September 1971. Despite the unquestioned validity of those registrations, District 18 refused to enroll the children, basing its action entirely on the agreement with District 23. As a result, no kindergarten children from Tilden Houses were enrolled in any District 18 schools for the school year beginning September 1971, with the exception of a limited number granted admission because of the attendance of siblings. The parents were assured, however, of admission in the following year.

The controversy predictably came to a head as the September 1972 school year approached. The position of District 18 continued to be that, while Tilden Houses children already attending schools within the district might continue to do so, no new Tilden Houses children would be allowed to enroll in District 18 schools. Several Tilden Houses parents nevertheless insisted that their children had a legal right to attend District 18 schools, and that such right had been acknowledged the previous year by District 18 officials. An inquiry at the Office of the Deputy Chancellor by Rev. Wilbert B. Miller, a leader of the Tilden Houses parents group, indicated strong support by the City Board for the parents' position. In a letter dated July 6, 1972 from Assistant Superintendent of Schools Henrietta B. Percell to Reverend Miller, the City Board's stance was stated in part as follows:

"The Deputy Chancellor on his own behalf and that of the Chancellor, wrote to Community School Board 18 informing them of their responsibility to register and assign the pupils from the Tilden Houses. As of this date, we have received no assurances that these directives will be implemented.

Therefore, let me assure you that this office will take all necessary steps to effectuate compliance with the Chancellor\'s directive. The schools are presently closed for the summer and certain difficulties are thereby presented, nevertheless, we will proceed towards enforcing what we see as our legal responsibility."

On August 14, a letter from Deputy Chancellor Irving Anker to Reverend Miller further assured the right of the Tilden Houses children to attend their zoned schools, and stated that "if there are any children denied admission to their zoned schools, they have a right to notify this office and to appeal to this office if appeals to Community School Board 18 are ineffective."

District 18 nevertheless remained rigid. Therefore, on September 8, 1972 (three days before the scheduled opening of school), Deputy Chancellor Anker, on behalf of the Chancellor, issued an order placing District 18 in trusteeship, pursuant to § 2590-l(1) (a) of Article 52-A. Assistant Superintendent Daniel Schreiber was appointed trustee "for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the instructions previously issued by this office with regard to the registration of the students from the Tilden Houses."

On September 11, Assistant Superintendent Schreiber went to District 18's Junior High School 285 to determine whether the district was prepared to recognize his authority as trustee.⁶ The doors to the school were closed. The following day, Schreiber and his aides went to P.S. 244, where he knew the Tilden Houses parents had gathered. There he found general intransigence on the part of the principal and employees of the school, and a sit-in by the Canarsie parents. He directed the Tilden Houses parents to move into the school's auditorium for the purpose of registering the children. The forms distributed to the parents, while differing to some extent from those normally used for registration, requested the same essential information as the official forms. The next problem was to assign the children to particular schools within the district. Schreiber, being unfamiliar with past practice in that regard, asked the parents to indicate on the child's registration form the school to which he would have been assigned under the pre-decentralization policy of assignment based on address. This was meant to insure compliance with the trusteeship instructions to register the children for District 18 schools as in past years. He then instructed the parents to report with their children on Wednesday, September 13, to the schools they had indicated.

On September 13, the District 18 schools were closed by order of the Community School Board. Schreiber returned to P.S. 244 where most of the Tilden Houses parents were again assembled, and gave them new registration forms to complete, this time identical to those normally used. Schreiber's aids performed a like function at the other District 18 elementary schools. The completed forms were then delivered to the District 18 Community School Board for the purpose of assigning children to specific schools.

Shortly thereafter, District 18...