297 F. Supp. 664 | E.D. La. | 1969
In this class action, plaintiff, Hedy Major, seeks to eliminate segregation in the Louisiana state reform schools
The fair administration of justice dictates that decisions be reached only after the court has fully heard and considered all the evidence. Only when it is clear that “irreparable damage will result” if temporary relief is not granted, may the court grant such relief before a full scale hearing is held. 28 U.S.C. § 2284(3).
A hearing to determine the right to temporary relief is not a determination of the merits of a claim,
But, as its very name implies, a temporary restraining order is issued only for a short period, upon a showing of its necessity to prevent further injury until time permits an adequate hearing on the issuance of an injunction.
In a proper ease, of course, a temporary restraining order may be issued to alter the status quo.
A cursory examination of the evidence introduced at the hearing
Temporary relief must “create or preserve a state of affairs such that [the court] will be able, upon conclusion of the full trial, to render a meaningful decision for either party.” Chappell & Co. v. Frankel, supra, at 202.
A three judge court composed of Circuit Judge Ainsworth, District Judge West and myself has been appointed. The first issue before it will be the determination of the plaintiff's motion to rescind the appointment on the basis that there is no substantial constitutional question for its consideration.
The motion for a temporary restraining order is therefore denied.
. Louisiana presently operates three youth correctional institutions: All Negro juveniles are committed to the State Industrial School for Colored Youth at Baton Rouge; all white male juveniles are committed to the Louisiana Training Institute at Monroe; all white female juveniles are committed to the Louisiana State Industrial School for Girls at Pineville.
. LSA-R.S. 15:911, 912, 972, 1011, 1012, 1031, 1032.
. Indeed, the decision granting or denying temporary relief has no binding effect upon the court’s ultimate consideration of
. See Board of Managers of Arkansas Training School for Boys v. George, 8 Cir., 1967, 377 F.2d 228; Washington v. Lee, (three judge court), M.D. Ala., 1966, 263 F.Supp. 327, aff’d, 1968, 390 U.S. 333, 88 S.Ct. 994, 19 L.Ed.2d 1212; Singleton v. Board of Commissioners of State Institutions, 5 Cir., 1966, 356 F.2d 771. Cf. Johnson v. Virginia, 1963, 373 U.S. 61, 62, 83 S.Ct. 1053, 10 L.Ed.2d 195.
. See generally, 7 Moore’s Federal Practice j[ 65.05, pp. 1642-43.
. This may be a matter of semantics however. The status quo may be “a condition not of rest, but of action,” and, in such a case, unless the court were to order defendant to take affirmative action, the status quo would not be preserved and irreparable injury might re-suit. Toledo, A.A. & N.M. Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., C.C. N.D.Ohio, 1893, 54 F. 730.
. The evidence at the hearing consisted of 76 photographs of the three institutions and official state financial statements and reports.
. Two of the institutions appear to be seriously over-crowded: the State Industrial School for Colored Youth, both male and female, has 1000 juveniles in a facility designed for 582, and the Louisiana Training Institute for white male youth has 450 men in an institution whose official capacity is 325. The Louisiana State Industrial School for Girls where white female juveniles are committed has 132 girls in facilities designed for that number. (All of these figures are for 1968-69 and were computed from the Department of Institutions budget request. The figures for past years are substantially similar).
. For further discussion, see Developments in the Law — Injunctions, 78 Harv.L.Rev. 994, 1056 (1965).
. See Jackson v. Choate, 5 Cir., 1968, 404 F.2d 910.
. In Board of Managers of Arkansas Training School for Boys v. George, supra, at 231, an identical case, the Eighth Circuit ruled that a three judge court was not required. Cf. Bailey v. Patterson, 1962, 369 U.S. 31, 82 S.Ct. 549, 7 L.Ed.2d 512.