Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180629_0002123.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-12-10 11:09:36
Document Index: 270262490

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', 'art. 8', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 372', '§ 372', '§ 141', '§ 141', '§ 141', '§ 141', '§ 141', '§ 141']

Plaintiffs are minor children who attend, or attended, public schools in Detroit. They have alleged that the conditions of their schools are so poor, and so inadequate, that they have not received even a minimally adequate education. Specifically, they alleged they have been denied access to literacy on account of their races, in violation of their rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. They brought suit against the Michigan state officials they believe to be responsible. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, principally because they believe Plaintiffs sued the wrong parties. Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs' alleged harm is not cognizable under the Constitution. Many amici weighed in on the matter and the Court held a hearing. For the reasons below, the Court must grant the motion and dismiss the case.
Count Three is also § 1983 action and alleges disparate treatment on the basis of race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Counts Two and Four, see ECF 64, PgID 1445, n.11; ECF 109, PgID 2590-91, so two avenues of relief remain: the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint on two grounds. First, they insist that they cannot be sued. According to Defendants, the State of Michigan and its officials never operated Plaintiffs' schools, so they are the wrong parties to enjoin. Moreover, Defendants contend that they are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Second, Defendants argue that access to literacy is not a constitutionally protected right, so the failure to provide such access cannot constitute a valid claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. They also dispute the allegation that Plaintiffs have been treated differently on account of their races.
Plaintiffs assert, "[t]he State of Michigan is ultimately responsible for complying with all constitutional mandates regarding public education. But it has particular responsibility for the schools in Detroit, as it has controlled the [Detroit Public Schools] (and now, [Detroit Public Schools Community District]) schools since 1999." ECF 1, PgID 46, ¶ 61. Accordingly, Plaintiffs hold Defendants "responsible for the education of all Michigan public school students and for the system of Michigan public schools[.]" Id. at 126, ¶ 200. Defendants counter that though the State has a supervisory role in education and eventually appointed an emergency manager, the State never had "direct control" over Detroit schools-at most, one local authority supplanted another. See ECF 60, PgID 505-509.
In Michigan, educational responsibilities begin at the state level. The Michigan Constitution requires the legislature to "maintain and support a system of free public elementary and secondary schools" and every school district must "provide for the education of its pupils without discrimination as to religion, creed, race, color or national origin." Mich. Const. art. 8, § 2.[1] The constitution further states that "[leadership and general supervision over all public education . . . is vested in a state board of education." Id. § 3.
Circumstances sometime require more state involvement-especially when those circumstances involve finances. Over the last few decades, Michigan enacted several statutory schemes permitting state officials to appoint managers in the event of financial crises. See generally Phillips v. Snyder, 836 F.3d 707, 711-12. (6th Cir. 2016) (summarizing Michigan's various statutory schemes since 1988). Michigan used those mechanisms to intervene in Detroit public schools more than once.
In 1999, Public Act 10 went into effect. The Act required Detroit's mayor to appoint a "school reform board" charged with appointing a chief executive officer. Act of March 26, 1999, §§ 372(1), 374(1). The reform board was initially composed of seven members: six appointed by Detroit's mayor, and the seventh appointed by "the superintendent of public instruction or his or her designee." Id. § 372(2)(b).[2] After five years, the mayor would gain the power to appoint the seventh member as well. Id. The arrangement ended in 2004, however, when a voter referendum returned governance of Detroit Schools to a locally elected board. ECF 1, PgID 51, ¶ 69; ECF 60, PgID 506.
In 2011, the emergency manger gained more power in governing the affairs of Detroit schools. That year, Michigan repealed Public Act 72 and replaced it with Public Act 4, the "Local Government and School District Fiscal Accountability Act." Public Act 4 did not last long-Michigan voters rejected it by referendum the following year-but the legislature soon replaced it with the very similar Public Act 436, which remains in effect. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 141.1541, et seq. Just as with the prior Public Acts, 4 and 436 also required the Governor to appoint a review board principally composed of state actors. Mich. Comp. Laws § 141.1512(4) (repealed by Prop. 12-1, Aug. 8, 2012); Id. § 141.1544(4). But the Acts also empowered the emergency managers to "[e]xercise solely, for and on behalf of the school district, all other authority and responsibilities affecting the school district that are prescribed by law to the school board and superintendent of the school district." Mich. Comp. Laws § 141.1520(f) (repealed by Prop. 12-1, Aug. 8, 2012); Id. § 141.1554(f).
In light of the foregoing, there is no question that the State has been heavily involved with Detroit schools for some time. Indeed, Public Act 10 went into effect before any of the Plaintiffs were of school age, and in most cases, before they were even born. There likewise is no question that Michigan law imbues the emergency managers-under any of their various legal descriptions-with significant power and authority to conduct the affairs of Detroit schools. The question, then, is whether the State's involvement described here makes its actors the proper parties to sue in the case.
Whether Defendants enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity is a separate question from the broader inquiry of whether any of them could be said to have controlled Detroit schools[4]. Any persuasive value of Guertin at this stage of the litigation is therefore misplaced. And though Kinkaid makes clear that emergency managers "act[] only on behalf of numerous local officials," it also confirms that they "serve[] at the pleasure of the governor." 311 Mich.App. 76, 88 (2015) (citing Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 141.1515(5)(d), 1549(3)(d)) (emphasis original). Neither case answers the question of whether the Governor and his or her appointees should be held responsible for the conditions in Detroit schools.
Even so, the Michigan Court of Appeals roundly criticized the Gulla opinion in a more recent, published opinion. See Mays v. Snyder, No. 335555, 2018 WL 559726, at *14, n.14, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2018). And the Mays court held precisely the opposite: "an emergency manager operates as an administrative officer of the state. Further, it is beyond dispute that at a minimum, an emergency manager must be characterized as an employee of the state." Id. at *14.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;What Phillips, Moore, and other cases[5] suggest is that Detroit residents have repeatedly pushed back against the Public Acts and state actions that supplanted local control. At each step, courts affirmed the legality of the State's interventions. Now, facing the deplorable conditions alleged in the Complaint, Detroit students seek to hold someone responsible. They have adequately ...