Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HOOTS v. PENNSYLVANIA

December 8, 1971

Dorothy HOOTS, individually and as mother of her children Janelle Hoots and Jamie Hoots, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al., Defendants


Weber, District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: WEBER

Plaintiffs' Complaint contains allegations that:

 
(a) In preparing and adopting the school reorganization plans defendants intentionally and knowingly created racially segregated school districts.
 
(b) In preparing and adopting the school reorganization plan the defendants failed to take steps to eliminate racial imbalance.
 
(c) In preparing and adopting the school reorganization plans the defendants failed to consider and make findings with respect to the racial characteristics of the new districts which they were creating.
 
(d) In preparing and adopting the school reorganization plan the defendants compelled the formation of an economically deprived school district which does not have the resources to provide education opportunities commensurate with the adjoining school districts and thus deprives plaintiffs of equal educational opportunities.

 All defendants filed motions to dismiss but that of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been withdrawn.

 The remaining defendants allege in support of their motions:

 1. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action.

 We have no doubt that the allegations of deliberate creation of a racially segregated school district state a cause of action, and that the remaining allegations are ancillary and supportive of this claim. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 [1954]; Taylor v. Board of Education of City School District of New Rochelle, 294 F.2d 36 [2nd Cir., 1961]; Brewer v. School Board of City of Norfolk, 397 F.2d 37 [4th Cir., 1968].

 While defendants argue that plaintiffs' complaint does not contain a short simple statement of the cause of action, we do not believe that it is subject to dismissal because it pleads so much material that is evidentiary.

 2. The corporate parties defendant, being political subdivisions of the Commonwealth are not "persons" subject to suit under the Civil Rights Act and are not proper parties defendant.

 While the right to maintain suit for monetary damages against municipal corporations or political subdivisions has been denied under the Civil Rights Acts this denial has been limited to relief for monetary damages and has not been applied where the relief sought is injunctive in nature. See: Service Employees International Union A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. County of Butler, 306 F. Supp. 1080 [W.D. Pa., 1969].

 Moreover, this complaint avers that the suit is brought for injunctive relief to redress a deprivation of a right granted by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. As was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.