Case Name: Onesephor BROUSSARD et al., Appellants, v. The HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1968-10-02
Citations: 403 F.2d 34
Docket Number: No. 24018
Parties: Onesephor BROUSSARD et al., Appellants, v. The HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 403
Pages: 34–36

Head Matter:
Onesephor BROUSSARD et al., Appellants, v. The HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. Appellees.
No. 24018.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 2, 1968.
Arthur Mandell, Joseph L. Tita, William L. Wood, Jr, Houston, Tex, for appellants.
Joe H. Reynolds, Houston, Tex, for appellees.
Anne Gross Feldman, Robert L. Carter, New York City, Al Schulman, Houston, Tex, amicus curiae.
Before RIVES and WISDOM, Circuit Judges, and CONNALLY, District Judge.-

Opinion:
CONNALLY, District Judge:
As noted in the original opinion, this action was filed in the court below as a class action, in equity, to restrain the expenditure of what then remained uncommitted of the proceeds of a $59 million bond issue for school construction and improvement. The injunctive relief prayed for was denied both below and here. It appears without dispute that now, or by the opening of school in the early days of September, 1968, all of the construction of which plaintiffs made complaint is or will be completed, save and except an administration building, no part of which will be used for classroom purposes, and that substantially all of the funds in issue have heretofore been expended. Thus the only issue raised by the pleadings and the trial below has become moot. Both the majority and the dissenting opinions have discussed this controversy fully and at length. To dwell further upon it is but to beat the dead horse.
In their petition for rehearing plaintiffs contend that though the building program be complete, upon their request for "further relief" this Court should remand the action to the District Court to permit plaintiffs to seek an order as to how the new buildings may best be used to further and promote integration. But this action is not the usual "school integration" case wherein the District Court is charged with the duty of retaining jurisdiction to shepherd the school district along its path from segregation to integration. As heretofore noted, such an action has been pending against this defendant, in the Southern District of Texas, for many years where all questions of this nature appropriately may be raised.
The motion to dismiss for mootness is granted.
The Petition for Rehearing is denied and the Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is also denied.