United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-4164

Michael C. Liddell, a minor, by * Minnie Liddell, his mother and next * friend; Kendra Liddell, a minor, * by Minnie Liddell, her mother and next * friend; Minnie Liddell; Roderick D. * LeGrand, a minor, by Lois LeGrand, * his mother and next friend; Lois * LeGrand; Clodis Yarber, a minor, by * Samuel Yarber, his father and next * Appeal from the Unite d States friend; Samuel Yarber; Earline Caldwell; * District Court for the Lillie Caldwell; Gwendolyn Daniels; * Eastern District o f Missouri. National Association for the * Advancement of Colored People; * United States of America; *
* Plaintiffs-Appellees; *
* City of St. Louis; *
* Plaintiff; *
*
v. * * The Board of Education of the City of * St. Louis; Hattie R. Jackson, President, * Board of Education of the City of St. * Louis; Rev. Earl E. Nance, Jr., a * member of the Board of Education of * the City of St. Louis; Renni B. Shuter, *2

a member of the Board of Education; * of the City of St. Louis; Paula V. * Smith, a member of the Board of Educa- * tion of the City of St. Louis; Dr. Albert * D. Bender, Sr., a member of the Board * of Education of the City of St. Louis; * Eddie G. Davis, a member of the Board * of Education of the City of St. Louis; * Dr. John P. Mahoney, a member of the * Board of Education of the City of St. * Louis; Marybeth McBryan, a member * of the Board of Education of the City * of St. Louis; Thomas M. Nolan, a * member of the Board of Education of * the City of St. Louis; William Purdy, a * member of the Board of Education of * the City of St. Louis; Robbyn G. Wahby, * a member of the Board of Education of * the City of St. Louis; Madye Henson * Whithead, a member of the Board of * Education of the City of St. Louis; * Dr. Cleveland Hammonds, Jr., Super- * intendent of Schools for the City of St. * Louis; *
* Defendants-Appellees; *
* Ronald Leggett, St. Louis Collector of * Revenue; *

Defendant; *
* State of Missouri; Mel Carnahan, * Governor of the State of Missouri; * Jeremiah (Jay) W. Nixon, Attorney * General; Bob Holden, Treasurer; * Richard A. Hanson, Commissioner of * Administration; Robert E. Bartman, *3

Commissioner of Education; Missouri * State Board of Education, and its * members; Thomas R. Davis; * Sharon M. Williams; Peter F. * Herschend; Jacqueline D. Wellington; * Betty E. Preston; Russell V. Thompson; * Rice Pete Burns; William Kahn; *
* Defendants-Appellees; *
* Special School District of St. Louis * County; *
* Defendant-Appellant; *
* Affton Board of Education; Bayless * Board of Education; Brentwood * Board of Education; Clayton Board of * Education; Ferguson-Florissant Board * of Education; Hancock Place Board of * Education; Hazelwood Board of * Education; Jennings Board of Education; * Kirkwood Board of Education; LaDue * Board of Education; Lindbergh Board of * Education; Maplewood-Richmond * Heights Board of Education; Mehlville * Board of Education; Normandy Board * of Education; Parkway Board of * Education; Pattonville Board of Educa- * tion; Ritenour Board of Education; * Riverview Gardens Board of Education; * Rockwood Board of Education; * University City Board of Education; * Valley Park Board of Education; * Webster Groves Board of Education; * Wellston Board of Education; *
*4

Defendants-Appellees; *
* St. Louis County; Buzz Westfall, County * Executive; James Baker, Director of * Administration, St. Louis County, * Missouri; Robert H. Peterson, Collector * of St. Louis County "Contract Account," * St. Louis County, Missouri; *
* Defendants; *

* The St. Louis Career Education * District; *
* Defendant-Appellee; *
* St. Louis Teachers' Union, Local 420, * AFT, AFL-CIO; *
* Intervenor Below. *

Submitted: February 25, 1998 Filed: April 28, 1998

Before MCMILLIAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.
In this continuing desegregation litigation, the Special School Di strict of St. Louis County (SSD) appeals from the dist rict court’s September 22, 1997 order (G(2568)97) relating to the quality-education goals for vocational education. Because5

the district court’s October 22, 1997 order (G(2594)97) elimi nated the SSD’s obligations relating to the quality-education goals, the appeal is moot and we dismiss.

I.

In 1991, the district court designated the SSD as the sole provider of vocational educ ation for students in the City and County of St. Louis. In 1993, the district cour t ordered its monitoring committee, the Metropolitan Coordinating Council (MCC), t o develop twelve quality-education goals by which SSD’s performance under th e desegregatio n remedy would be measured. The district court subsequently adopted the twelve goals proposed by the MCC. The SSD did not appeal.

On June 25, 1996, the district court created the Career Education District (CED) in an at tempt to improve the administration of vocational education. For the 1996-9 7 school year, the CED operated the city v ocational education program. On May 8, 1997, the district court ordered the CED to assume responsibility for operating the entir e
voc ational education program as of July 1, 1997. The SSD appealed from that order , and we held that for the 1997-98 school year, the CED would continue to operate the city vocational education

program and the SSD would continue to run the county vocational education program. See Liddell v. Board of Educ. , 121 F.3d 1201, 1217 (8th Cir. 1997).

On September 22, 1997, the district court entered order G(2568)97 in which i t required (1) the SSD and CED to f ile enrollment reports for both semesters of the 1997- 98 s chool year; (2) the Vocational Education Oversight Office (VEOO), the MCC’ s
succ essor, to update the quality-education goals for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 schoo l years a nd note which goals were applicable to the CED; (3) the SSD and CED to file a report a s to their progress in attaining those goals for the 1996-97 school year; (4) th e SSD to file the results of the Program Effectiveness Review (PER) for the 1996-9 7 school year; and (5) the SSD to recruit students for the county vocational education6

program and the CED to recruit students for the city vocational education program fo r the 1998-99 school year. On October 22, 1997, the district court entered orde r G(2594)9 7 in which it vacated that part of order G(2568)97 relating to the SSD’s an d CED’s reporting obligations on the twelve quality-education goals and PER for the 1996- 97 school year.
On appeal, the SSD argues that the district court erred in requiring it to report on and meet the twelve goals for the 1997-98 school year. Spe cifically, the SSD argues that th e district court lacked the authority to impose the twelve goals because no identifie d constitutional violation nor fa ctual foundation supported their imposition. Alternatively, the SSD points out that, because the district court had scheduled a hearing for January 1998 at wh ich it would make legal and factual findings relevant to determining th e validity of the twelve goals, the district court’s order was at best premature.

II.

The SSD misconstrues the district court’s orders. Order G(2568)97 mandated , among other things, reporting requirements on the twelve quality-education goals an d PER only fo r the 1996-97 school year. Order G(2594)97 amended G(2568)97 an d released the SSD from those requirements. In addition, G(2568)97 asked the VEOO to update the twelve quality-education goals for t he 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years, but imposed no obligations on the SSD relating to the goals for these years. Insofar as the SSD appeals from the district court requiring a 1997-98 obligation as to the quality

education goals, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

We are not convinced that the SSD’s challenge to the validity of the twelv e quality-educ ation goals is properly before us. While we need not address the issue, we make the following observations. First , we note that the SSD did not appeal the original district court order which initially approved and adopted the twelve quality-7

education goals. Second, no order approving any goals updated by the VEOO is before us. In fact, the district cour t recently held a hearing and issued a Memorandum Opinion in which it has made extensive factual and legal findings relevant to the administration of vo cational education. See Liddell v. Board of Educ. , No. 72-0100C(6) (E.D. Mo

. 1998), appeal docketed , No. 98-1710 (8th Cir. Mar. 17, 1998). Specifically, the district court ordered that, as of July 1, 1998, the SSD shall no longer provide vocationa l education in the St. Louis area. Id. at 12. Tha t order has been appealed but we have not yet heard oral argument. We refrain from addressing the issue not yet properly before this court.

III.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

A true copy.

Attest.

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.