Singleton v. Anson County Board of Education
| Decision Date | 17 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 11740.,11740. |
| Citation | 387 F.2d 349 |
| Parties | Freddie M. SINGLETON et al., Appellants, v. ANSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a public body corporate, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
J. LeVonne Chambers, Charlotte, N. C. (Conrad O. Pearson, Jr., Durham, N. C., J. H. Rennick, Salisbury, N. C., Jack Greenberg and James M. Nabrit, III, New York City, on motion), for appellants.
H. P. Taylor, Jr., Wadesboro, N. C. (Taylor, McLendon & Jones, Wadesboro, N. C., on answer), for appellee.
Before BRYAN, CRAVEN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
In an exceedingly complex fact situation, including recent consolidation of three separate school administrative units into a single countywide system and inauguration of a new school board, piecemeal vindication of civil rights by way of preliminary injunction is inappropriate. "The purpose of a preliminary injunction ordinarily is to preserve the status quo until the rights can be fully determined by trial." 3 Barron & Holtzoff § 1433, at 490 (1958). Preliminary injunction is especially inappropriate after the school year is well under way. Granting individual plaintiffs what they seek would in late October be disruptive rather than beneficial even to the plaintiffs — without regard to the interests of others. In declining to order the immediate transfer of these 27 Negro plaintiffs to the school of their belated choice,1 we think the district judge did not abuse his discretion. Quite properly he agreed to accelerate the cause on the docket for determination of the whole case on the merits. See, Carson v. Warlick, 238 F.2d 724, 727 (4th Cir. 1956). On remand he should, and undoubtedly will, require both sides to promptly submit a plan of desegregation to accord individual plaintiffs and their class their constitutional rights as soon as practicably possible.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a) (2) wisely permits the district court in an appropriate case to hear a motion for preliminary injunction and conduct a hearing on the merits at the same time. Civil rights cases are especially suitable for such simultaneous development. The district judge may sometimes advance the litigation and save court time by pursuing such a course on his own motion where, as here, the litigants have not moved him to do so.
1 Sometime during the spring or summer of 1967 these students chose to attend the new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pargas, Inc. v. Empire Gas Corp.
...with the district judge and may not be set aside on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Singleton v. Anson County Board of Education, 387 F.2d 349 (4 Cir. 1967); Meiselman v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 180 F.2d 94 (4 Cir. 1950); Sinclair Refining Co. v. Midland Oil Co., 5......
-
Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. U.S.
...consolidation without notice in special circumstances. See Bright v. Nunn, 448 F.2d 245 (6th Cir. 1971); Singleton v. Anson County Bd. of Educ., 387 F.2d 349 (4th Cir. 1967); Williamson v. Hampton Management Co., 339 F.Supp. 1146 (N.D.Ill.1972); 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, supra, § 2950 at 49......
-
Committee for Auto Responsibility v. Solomon
...party. 31 Brief for Appellees at 16-17. 32 Crumble v. Blumenthal, 549 F.2d 462, 466 (7th Cir. 1977). See also Singleton v. Anson County Bd. of Educ., 387 F.2d 349 (4th Cir. 1967); Puerto Rican Farm Workers v. Eatman, 427 F.2d 210 (5th Cir. 1970); 7 Moore's Fed. Practice ¶ 65.044 (2d ed. 33 ......
-
Leesona Corporation v. Varta Batteries, Inc.
...Rule 65(a)(2) may, as matter of discretion, be ordered by a district court on its own motion. See Singleton v. Anson County Board of Education, 387 F.2d 349 (4th Cir. 1967) (per curiam); Brass v. Hoberman, 295 F.Supp. 358, 364-65 (S.D.N.Y.1968); and 7 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 65.044, at 6......