1 19-550-cv Christa McAuliffe Intermediate School PTO, Inc., et al v. Bill de Blasio, et al

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT



## SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Cita tion to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted a nd is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party mu st cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summa ry order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

At a stated term of the United States Cour t of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse , 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 20 th day of December, tw o thousand nineteen.

PRESENT: J OSÉ A. C ABRANES , J OSEPH F. B IANCO , Circuit Judges

, C HRISTINA R EISS District Judge

. *

C HRISTA M C A ULIFFE I NTERMEDIATE S CHOOL PTO, I NC ., C HINESE A MERICAN C ITIZENS A LLIANCE OF G REATER N EW Y ORK , A SIAN A MERICAN C OALITION
FOR E DUCATION , P HILLIP Y AN H ING W ONG , Y I F ANG C HEN , AND C HI W ANG , Plaintiffs-Appellants, 19-550-cv

v.

B ILL DE B LASIO , IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS M AYOR OF N EW Y ORK , AND R ICHARD A. C ARRANZA , IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS C HANCELLOR OF THE N EW Y ORK C ITY D EPARTMENT OF E DUCATION , Defendants-Appellees

.

* Judge Christina Reiss, of the United States Dist rict Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.2 FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: C HRISTOPHER M. K IESER , Joshua P. Thompson, Wencong Fa, Oliver J. Dunford, Glenn E. Roper, Pacific Legal Defense Foundation, Sacramento, CA.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: J OHN M OORE (Richard Dearing, Deborah A. Brenner, on the brief ) for Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY.

Appeal from an order of the United States Di strict Court for the Southern District of New York (Edgardo Ramos, Judge ).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREO F, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the District Court be and hereby is, on the basis of the record to date, AFFIRMED

. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

First , the organizational plaintiffs bringing this ap peal do not have standing to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of their members. See Nnebe v. Daus , 644 F.3d 147, 156 (2d Cir. 2011). “[W]e have ‘interpret[ed] the rights [§ 19 83] secures to be personal to those purportedly injured.’” Id. (quoting League of Women Voters of Nassau Cnty . v. Nassau Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 737 F.2d 155, 160 (2d Cir. 1984)).

Second , even if the organizations have standing to assert claims on their own behalf, they have not demonstrated an injury sufficient to secure injunctive relief, since their purported injury— expenditure of monetary resources on advocacy agai nst the City’s change to its specialized high school admissions process—is entirely retrospective. As we have noted, in order to secure “injunctive or declaratory relief,” plaintiffs “ca nnot rely on past injury to satisfy the injury requirement but must show a likelihood that [they] will be injured in the future.” Deshawn E. by Charlotte E. v. Safir , 156 F.3d 340, 344 (2d Cir. 1998).3 CONCLUSION

Due to concerns of timeliness, the mandate shall issue forthwith and shall not prejudice plaintiffs in the filing of a renewed petition for a preliminary injunction, or in applications for expedited discovery, including depositions of releva nt officials. In the interest of judicial economy, subsequent appeals shall be referred to this panel.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk