Document: 369 U.S. 350 82 S.Ct. 805 7 L.Ed.2d 762 Jesse TURNER, Appellant,v.CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, et al. No. 84. Argued Feb. 27, 1962. Decided March 26, Mrs. Constance Baker Motley, New York City, for appellant. Frank B. Gianotti, Jr., Memphis, Tenn., appellee, City of memphis. John M. Heiskell, appellees, Dobbs Houses, Inc., and W. S. Haverfield. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellant, a Negro refused nonsegregated service in the Memphis Municipal Airport restaurant operated by appellee under lease from instituted this action on behalf himself other Negroes similarly situated seeking an injunction against such discrimination. He rested jurisdiction upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), U.S.C.A. 1343(3) premised cause 42 1983, 1983. Although complaint alleged that appellees acted color state law, it did not identify any particular statutes or regulations being challenged. But appellees' answers, addition to asserting was private enterprise which Fourteenth Amendment apply, invoked Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 53—2120, 53—2121, Regulation R—18(L). The as now phrased authorize Division Hotel Restaurant Inspection State Department Conservation issue 'such rules * may be necessary pertaining safety and/or sanitation hotels restaurants *' make violations misdemeanor. regulation, promulgated Division, provides 'Restaurants catering both white negro patrons should arranged so each race is properly segregated.' answers also set up agreement provides, inter alia, leased premises are used 'only exclusively lawful purposes, no part shall manner whatsoever purposes violation laws Tennessee *.' further unless until regulation declared unconstitutional, city would bound object desegregation Houses law lease. therefore subject forfeiture later amended its answer include defense based 62—710. That statute 'abrogates' Tennessee's common-law exclusion public places, declares operators establishments free exclude persons 'for reason whatever.' 2 When appellant moved summary judgment before single district judge, opposed motion ground relief sought necessarily challenged constitutionality 2281, 2284, three-judge court required. judge thereupon convened court. Upon renewal his judgment, urged, ordered, appellant's suit held abeyance pending 'Declaratory Judgment brought plaintiffs Courts interpretation consideration.' doubt whether case one 'required heard determined three judges,' appealing abstention order directly Court 1253, perfected timely appeal Appeals Sixth Circuit. We postponed consideration question our direct hearing merits. 368 808, 31, 19. 3 Whether said read seeking, 'injunction restraining enforcement, operation execution (a) officer enforcement statute,' we need decide, clear reasons required disposition case. Since, conceded at bar Court, strictures Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 715, 81 856, 6 45, could have furnished only insofar they expressed affirmative policy fostering segregating publicly facilities. decisions foreclosed possible contention stand consistently with Amendment. Brown Board Education, 347 483, 74 686, 98 L.Ed. 873; Mayor & Council Baltimore Dawson, 877, 76 133, 100 774; Holmes Atlanta, 879, 141, 776; Gayle Browder, 352 903, 77 145, 114; Orleans Park Improvement Ass'n Detiege, 358 54, 79 228, 234. It follows recent decision Bailey Patterson, 549, 512, vested Appeals. 4 see why await On merits, remains resolved. This prior undisputed facts Accordingly occasion presented abstention, litigation disposed expeditiously consistent proper judicial administration. In light Circuit Appeals, appropriate treat, do jurisdictional statement petition writ certicrari 1254(1), 2101(e), 2101(e); Stainback Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 368, 370—371, 69 606, 608, 93 741. granted, District Court's vacated remanded directions enter decree granting injunctive discrimination complained of. 5 Vacated remanded. Mr. Justice WHITTAKER participate

Category: 1