Case 6:69-cv-00702-H
Document 53
Filed 10/06/2008
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
OLD WASHINGTON DIVISION
No. 6:69-CV-702-H
No. 6:65-CV-569-H
RONDA EVERETT, MELISSA GRIMES,
CAROLINE SUTTON, and CHRISTOPHER
W. TAYLOR, next friends of minor
children attending pitt County
schools, and THE PITT COUNTY
COALITION FOP EDUCATING BLACK
CHILDREN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
JUVENILE FEMALE 1 and THE
GREENVILLE PARENTS ASSOCIATION,
plaintiffs-Intervenors,
v.
THE PITT COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, public body
corporate,
Defendant.
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs-intervenors'
Motion
for
Attorney's
declaratory
intervenors'
the
Declaratory
Fees
and
judgment
motion
declaratory
to
Judgment,
Costs
filed
motion" )
Injunctive
August
[DE
stay discovery pending
jUdgment
motion
[DE
2008
4,
#39]
#43]
Relief
and
and
( "the
plaintiffs-
determination of
Plaintiffs­
Case 6:69-cv-00702-H
intervenors
request
Document 53
that
the
Filed 10/06/2008
court
enter
Page 2 of 3
judgment
declaring
(1) that the school desegregation orders entered by this court
in 1970 prohibit the defendant school board from using race in
assigning
students
district;
and
to
(2)
the
that
various
the
schools
defendant
within
school
the
board's
school
2005
and
2007 Student Assignment Plans violated the civil rights of the
plaintiffs-intervenors.
injunctive relief,
at
law
(except
Plaintiffs-Intervenors
further
request
contending that they "have no adequate remedy
by
declaratory
judgment)."
(Mem.
Supp.
Mot.
Decl. Judg. at 14.)
Plaintiffs
declaratory
Plaintiffs
and
the
Judgment
contend
defendant
motion,
that
the
because declaratory relief
is
school
albeit
motion
on
is
available
board
oppose
the
different
grounds.
procedurally
defective
only in an action for
declaratory judgment brought pursuant to Rule 57 of the Federal
Rules
of
civil
action.
(Pfs.'
Procedure,
Resp.
not
Mot.
by motion
Decl.
in an ordinary
Judg.
at
civil
Plaintiffs
5.)
further argue that the court should allow discovery to proceed
and a full evidentiary record to be developed before ruling on
the
issues p",nding before the court.
Judg.
at 10.)
The defendant school board,
agrees with plaintiffs - intervenors
the
merits
of
(Pfs.'
the
declaratory
that
Mot.
Decl.
on the other hand,
the
Judgment
Resp.
court
motion,
should reach
although
opposes the outcome suggested by plaintiffs-intervenors.
it
(Df.'s
Case 6:69-cv-00702-H
Resp.
Mot.
Decl.
Document 53
Judg.
plaintiffs-ir-cervenors'
at
Filed 10/06/2008
Defendant
3-8.)
Page 3 of 3
further
motion to stay discovery.
joins
(Df.' s Resp.
Mot. Decl. Judg. at 3.)
The court. has considered each of the parties'
as well as
Act,
the nature and purpose of
28 U.S.C.
issues
§
presently
judgment
the Declaratory Judgment
the significance of the substantive legal
2201,
before
declaring
contentions,
the
the
court,
rights
and the
and
likelihood
obligations
of
the
that
a
parties
would remedy any harm that may have been caused by the defendant
school board's actions or would promote judicial efficiency by
fUlly
resolving
consideration of
the
the
parties'
above
dispute.
factors,
the
Based
court
relief in the form of a declaratory judgment is
~n
on
its
determines
that
no~
appropriate
this case.
Accordingly, plaintiffs-intervenors'
Judgment,
#39]
is
Injunctive
DENIED.
Discovery [DE #43J
Relief
Motion for Declaratory
and Attorney's
Plaintiffs-Intervenors'
Fees
and
Motion
Costs
to
is DISMISSED as moot.
a
This ~ __ day of October 2008.
MALCOLM J. HOWARD
Senior United Sta es District Judge
At Greenville, NC
#31
[DE
Stay