University Day Care Ctr. v. Temple U.-Com. of Higher Ed., 71-1091.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1091.,71-1091. |
| Parties | UNIVERSITY DAY CARE CENTER, INC. a/k/a Day Care Action Committee et al., Appellants, v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY — OF the COMMONWEALTH OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Paul R. Anderson, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
David H. Pittinsky, Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish, Levy & Coleman, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.
Peter Platten, Philadelphia, Pa. (Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, Tyson
W. Coughlin, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.
Before GANEY, VAN DUSEN and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a final judgment dismissing appellants' complaint which sought a temporary and permanent injunction against the continuance in the Court of Common Pleas of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of a civil action for an injunction brought by one of the defendants against some of the plaintiffs. The defendants are Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education (the plaintiff in the Common Pleas action) and Paul R. Anderson, the President of Temple. The plaintiffs are University Day Care Center, Inc., a nonprofit corporation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and four individuals, each of whom is interested in the management of University Day Care Center, Inc., or is a beneficiary of its services. Federal jurisdiction is asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 on the theory that the lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas was brought by Temple, a state institution, in violation of its own internal administrative rules. This violation, appellants assert, deprives them of the due process of law and equal protection of the law guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth Amendment.
By virtue of the Temple University — Commonwealth Act, 1965, Nov. 30, P.L. 843, § 1, 24 P.S. § 2510-1 et seq., (Supp.1970), Temple became a part of the Commonwealth system of higher education. The University operates under a statute which provides:
24 P.S. § 2510-5.
Acting pursuant to this statute the Board of Trustees has enacted by-laws which, among other things, define the authority of officers of the University, especially the President, who is designated the chief executive officer and head of the University. The Board of Trustees has also authorized the recognition of a number of committees within the University. This controversy grows out of a conflict between the jurisdiction claimed by one of those, the Student Activities Committee, and the jurisdiction claimed to be reserved to the executive officers of the University. The due process violation asserted is that in the resolution of that conflict in claimed jurisdictions the University failed to comply with provisions of "The Temple Plan for University Governance," which sets forth seven principles for internal resolution of emergencies resulting from confrontations in the University. One of these principles states, "The University should resort to external authority only after exhausting all its internal procedures." This Plan for University Governance was drafted by a Commission on Student Participation in the Policy Making Processes of the University appointed by the President. It submitted its report through the faculty senate to the Board of Trustees, who on March 11, 1969, approved the seven principles by the following motion:
"On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Trustees approved the recommendation of the Education Committee * * * that the Board (1) take note of the recommendations concerned with procedures for the orderly resolution of serious confrontations which were adopted by the Faculty Senate on December 5, 1968, (2) heartily endorse the seven principles governing such situations, and (3) go on record as approving the President\'s expression of intent to follow the procedures recommended, but as reserving for the President, or other officer designated by the President to act on his behalf, the obligation to take such action as any given emergency situation demands." (emphasis added)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salvati v. Dale
...affirmed 456 F.2d 854 (6 Cir.). We believe, however, that the holding of the Third Circuit in University Day Care Ctr. v. Temple U. — Com. of Higher Ed., 442 F.2d 1116 (3d Cir. 1971) is applicable to our present situation. In that case, after stating the questions presented, the Court "Seve......
-
Independent Tape Merchant's Association v. Creamer
...v. Aaron, 3 Cir. 1972, 455 F.2d 378; Lewis v. Kugler, 3 Cir.1971, 446 F.2d 1343; University Day Care Center, Inc. v. Temple University —Of Commonwealth of Higher Education, 3 Cir.1971, 442 F.2d 1116; Musselman v. Spies, N.D.Pa.1972, 343 F. Supp. 528. Abstention is not an automatic rule; rat......
-
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF NEWARK v. Henry
...federal primacy, a dilemma the horns of which, in this Circuit, are tagged, shaped and pointed by University Day Care Center, Inc. v. Temple University, 442 F.2d 1116 (3 Cir. 1971), and Lewis v. Kugler, 446 F.2d 1343 (3 Cir. 1971), The abstention cases, to a degee, illuminate the instant ju......
-
Musselman v. Spies
...L.Ed.2d 68 (1970); Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941); University Day Care Center v. Temple University, 442 F.2d 1116 (3d Cir. 1971). The critical inquiry, therefore, on the question of the applicability of the abstention doctrine to the inst......