Arrington v. The City of Fairfield, AL Court Opinion

    IN THE

Ualfed Stales Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

N o .  2 8 7 8  1

ED ARRINGTON, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD, ALABAMA, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.

A ppea l f r o m  the United S ta tes  D is tr ic t Court for  the  
N orthern  D is tr ic t  of A la b a m a

(A ugust 7, 1969)

B efore COLEM AN and GODBOLD, C ircu it Judges, 
and  SCOTT, D is tr ic t Judge.

SCOTT, D is tr ic t Jud g e : This is a  c lass  ac tio n  in  
equ ity  by N egro re s id en ts  of the  E nglew ood sec tion  of 
F a irfie ld , A lab am a, seek ing  an  in junction  to  p roh ib it 
th e  City of F a irf ie ld  and  E n g e l R ea lty  C om pany from  
d isp lacing  th em  fro m  th e ir  re s id en ces  and  th e ir  
consequen t rem o v a l from, th e  C ity of F a irfie ld  
in th e  absence  of ad eq u a te  re lo ca tio n  housing 
in  th e  c ity  of F a irfie ld . P la in tiffs ’ com pla in t w as 
d ism issed  by  th e  D is tric t C ourt fo r the  N o rth ern



2 A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY O F F A IR F IE L D

D is tr ic t of A lab am a. We hold th a t  th e  D is tric t C ourt 
w as in  e rro r , and  re m a n d  for fu r th e r  p roceed ings con­
s is te n t w ith  th is  opinion.

The com pla in t is founded upon T itle  28, U.S.C. § 
1343(3) and  (4), T itle 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 
1988 an d  th e  T h irteen th  and  F o u rte e n th  A m end­
m e n ts  to th e  U nited  S ta tes  C onstitution. P la in tiffs-ap - 
p e llan ts  also  seek  p re lim in a ry  and  p e rm a n e n t in ju n c­
tions to  “re s tra in  d efendan ts  fro m  continu ing  th e ir  
p re se n t course  of conduct, policies, p rac tice s , custom  
and  u sag e  of p rov id ing  m un ic ip a l fac ilitie s  on a d is­
c r im in a to ry  b asis  and  from  p u rsu in g  an  urban, ren ew ­
al p ro g ra m  in such  a  w ay as will cau se  th e  involun­
ta ry  re loca tion  of p la in tiffs  and  m e m b e rs  of th e ir  
c lass , w ithout p rov id ing  fo r su itab le  re lo ca tio n  w ith in  
th e  City of F a irfie ld , and  fro m  m ak in g  re lo ca tio n  out­
side th e  City in ev itab le  by  zone changes w hich fo re ­
close ad eq u a te  re s id e n tia l red ev e lo p m en t”.

T he p r im a ry  defendan ts  in  the  action  a re  th e  City 
of F a irf ie ld  and  E n g e l R ea lty  C om pany, a  p riv a te  com ­
p an y  w ith w hich th e  City of F a irf ie ld  co n tra c ted  to 
co m m erc ia lly  develop th e  E nglew ood a rea . O ther 
defendan ts  n a m e d  in  th e  co m p la in t a re  v a rio u s  city  
officials and  ag enc ies who h av e  ac ted  in  th e  n am e  of 
th e  City and the  com m issioner of the  F a irf ie ld  H ous­
ing A uthority .

In  th e ir  com plain t, filed on Ju ly  11, 1968, p la in tiffs  
sought to p re lim in a rily  and  p e rm a n en tly  enjoin th e  
City of F a irf ie ld  and  o thers  fro m  proceed ing  w ith the  
condem nation , acqu isition  or dem olition  of p ro p ertie s



A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY O F F A IR F IE L D  3

in  Englew ood. W ithout answ ering , a ll defendan ts  m oved 
to  d ism iss fo r fa ilu re  to s ta te  a  c laim , and  th e n  m oved  
fo r su m m a ry  judgm en t, A, h ea rin g  on p la in tiffs ’ m o­
tion  fo r a te m p o ra ry  in junction  to en jo in  d isp lacem en t 
pend ing  a fin a l h e a rin g  w as held  on A ugust 9, 1968, 
and  a t th e  conclusion of th e  h ea rin g  th e  D is tric t C ourt 
denied  p la in tiffs’ m otion. The C ourt en te red  ju d g ­
m e n t on A ugust 13, 1968, g ran tin g  th e  defen d an ts’ m o­
tion  to  d ism iss an d  m otion  fo r su m m a ry  judgm en t.

P la in tiffs  filed  no tice of ap p ea l on A ugust 22, 1968, 
and  on S ep tem b er 16, 1968, m oved  fo r a n  in junction  
pending  appeal. A p an e l of th is  C ourt g ra n te d  th e  m o ­
tion  for the  in junction  pending  appea l on O ctober 10, 
1968. This in junction  w as v a c a te d  on F e b ru a ry  17, 1969, 
by th e  p re se n t panel.

The p la in tiffs  live in Englew ood, a  p red o m in an tly  
N egro  section  of F a irfie ld . As found by th e  cou rt be­
low, m ost of th e  build ings a re  s tru c tu ra lly  defective 
and  do no t m ee t th e  h e a lth  s ta n d a rd s  of th e  city  of 
F a irfie ld . The s tre e ts  a re  in a d eq u a te  an d  unp av ed  and 
an  open d ra in a g e  d itch  ru n s th ro u g h  th e  en tire  a rea . 
F u rth e rm o re , th e  m a jo rity  of th e  p la in tiffs  a re  ten an ts .

In  1964 an  in te rs ta te  h ighw ay  w as p roposed  for 
build ing th ro u g h  portions of Englew ood. To com ply 
w ith  s ta te  law , the City of F a irf ie ld  rezoned  Englew ood 
fro m  p red o m in an tly  re s id en tia l to to u ris t and  com ­
m erc ia l.

D uring  1966 and  1967 th e  F a irf ie ld  H ousing A uthor­
ity  and  th e  reg iona l office of th e  D ep artm en t of Hous-



4 A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY OF F A IR F IE L D

ing and  U rb an  D evelopm ent (H U D ) d iscussed  in fo r­
m a l p ro p o sa ls  fo r an  u rb a n  ren ew a l p ro g ra m  in E n ­
glewood, w hich  qualified  as a  “s lu m ” a re a . The p ro ­
je c t w as to d isp lace  161 fam ilie s  of w hom  150 w ere 
N egroes.

B efore it w as notified  of the  ou tcom e of its  re q u e s t 
fo r fe d e ra l u rb a n  ren ew al funds, th e  City of F a ir -  
field  decided  to p ro ceed  w ith  th e  c o m m erc ia l devel­
opm ent of Englew ood. T he m a y o r m e t w ith  ow ners of 
th e  p ro p e ry  and  E n g e l R e a lty  C om pany, ag en t 
fo r th e  ow ners, to d e te rm in e  the  feasib ility  of build ing 
a  m o te l n e a r  th e  in te rs ta te  h ighw ay  in  o rd e r to p ro ­
m ote  to u ris t b usiness in  th e  City. In  fu r th e ra n c e  of its  
p lan , th e  C ity adop ted  th e  follow ing reso lu tion :

“B E  IT  R ESO LV ED  by th e  City Council of the  
City of F a irf ie ld  th a t  th e  M ayor be and  h e reb y  
is au tho rized  to en te r  into a  c o n tra c t w ith 
E ngel R ea lty  C om pany in co nsidera tion  of E n ­
gel R ea lty  C om pany’s com pletion  o f a  c o m m er­
c ia l developm ent in  th e  E nglew ood a re a  of the  
C ity of F a irfie ld , th e  City of F a irf ie ld  w ill in ­
s ta ll d ra in a g e  p ipe in and  cover the  d ra in a g e  
d itch  in  th a t a re a  com m only  know n as ‘ta r  
d itch ’ and  th a t  th e  C ity of F a irf ie ld  w ill com ­
p le te  such  w ork p rio r  to  th e  com pletion  of the 
site  p re p a ra tio n  fo r the  p roposed  developm ent 
by th e  E n g e l R ea lty  C om pany.

“ A dopted  4th day  of D ecem ber, 1967.
“A pproved  5th day  of D ecem ber, 1967.”



A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY O F F A IR F IE L D  5

In  d ism issing  th e  p la in tiffs ’ c la im , th e  D is tric t C ourt 
m a d e  th e  following find ings of fac t:

“1. T h a t th e  p la in tiffs  w ere  no t p ro p e rty  
ow ners in  Englew ood; it concluded th a t, as 
such, th ey  h ad  no stan d in g  to invoke th e  ju r is ­
diction  of th e  court;

“2. T h a t th e re  w as no u rb a n  ren ew al p ro ­
g ra m  u n d er subm ission , as p rov ided  by 42 
U.S.C. Section 1451, and  th a t th e  City h ad  no 
in ten tion  of try in g  to ren ew  the  p ro jec t;

“3. T hat th e  p ro p e rty  involved w as “b ligh t­
ed ” and  90% of th e  build ings w ere  s tru c tu ra lly  
defec tive and  su b jec t to  being condem ned for 
h ea lth  reasons;

“4. The p ro p e rty  w as not being condem ned  
by  th e  City or H ousing A uthority  u n d er th e  
pow er of em in en t dom ain;

“5. T hat E ngel R ea lty  did a tte m p t to p u r ­
ch ase  th e  p ro p e rty  fo r th e  pu rpose  of build ing 
a  m o te l and  o ther co m m erc ia l en te rp rises , 
but th a t it w as not ac tin g  as an  ag en t for the  
City, H ousing A uthority , or any  o th e r defendant 
in  its a tte m p t to p u rch ase  th e  p ro p erty ; and

“6. T h a t E ngel R ea lty  did not p a r tic ip a te  
in  the  c ity ’s u rb a n  ren ew al p ro g ra m .”

The tr ia l  cou rt concluded th a t the  p la in tiffs  as te n ­
an ts  h ad  no in te re s t in th e  p ro p e rty  o r in  th e  co n trac ts



6 A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY O F F A IR F IE L D

re g a rd in g  the  p ro p e rty  and, th e re fo re , h ad  no r ig h t to 
involve th e  ju risd ic tio n  of th e  fe d e ra l court. The C ourt 
fu r th e r  s ta ted  th a t  th e  d irec to r of th e  H ousing A uthor­
ity , c le rk  of th e  City, m e m b e rs  of th e  City Council 
an d  p lann ing  co m m ittee  and  th e  m a y o r of th e  City 
w ere  no t p ro p e r p a r ty  defendan ts.

In itia lly , it is im p o rta n t to recognize th e  n a rro w  
issu es  on th is  appeal. A d e te rm in a tio n  of th e  m e rits  
is no t before us. This C ourt is no t involved w ith  fa c t 
issues. The D is tric t C ourt h e a rd  o ra l te stim o n y  on m o­
tions to d ism iss and  fo r su m m a ry  ju d g m en t and  then  
d ism issed  th e  case  for la ck  of s tand ing  and  for fa il­
u re  to s ta te  a c la im  upon w hich  re lie f m a y  be. g ran ted . 
T he fa c t issues  of d isc rim in a tio n  an d  d isp lacem en t 
h av e  not been  d e te rm in ed  by th e  D is tric t Court. 
If  th e re  is s tand ing  and  a  good c la im  fo r re lie f is 
alleged , the  case  should be tr ie d  in  th e  D is tric t Court. 
The fo rm ing  of an  equ itab le  rem e d y  in  th e  f irs t in ­
s tan ce  is for th e  sound d iscre tion  of the  tr ia l  judge.

ST A N D IN G  TO SU E

A ppellan ts  a s s e r t  th a t as im poverished  N egro  te n ­
an ts  of th e  Englew ood a re a  of F a irf ie ld  th e y  have  
stand ing  to c la im  th a t d isp lacem en t fro m  th e ir  re s i­
dences p rec ip ita ted  by s ta te  action  and  in  th e  absence 
of re loca tion  housing w ithin the  City, w ill deny them  
rig h ts  secu red  by th e  T h irteen th  and  F o u rte e n th  A- 
m en d m en ts  and  A cts of C ongress w hich enforce these  
righ ts.



A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY O F F A IR F IE L D  7

The D is tr ic t C ourt n e v e r  re a c h e d  th e  m e rits  of th e  
c la im  because, it concluded th a t th e  “p la in tiffs  hav ing  
no in te re s t in th e  p ro p e rty  or in te re s t in  c o n tra c ts  r e ­
g a rd in g  th e  sam e, have  no rig h t to invoke th e  ju r ­
isd ic tion  of th is  C ourt.” In  its  findings of f a c t  th e  D is­
tr ic t  C ourt s ta ted : “T here  is no ev idence before the  
C ourt d isclosing th e  tru e  ow ners of sa id  p ro p e rty  
d escrib ed  in  th e  com pla in t and  it does not a p p e a r  
th a t  any  p a r ty  ow ning sa id  p ro p e rty  is now  before 
th e  C ourt.” '

The D istric t C ourt a tta ch e d  sign ificance to the  fa c t 
th a t ap p e llan ts  a re  te n an ts  and  a re  not p ro p e rty  own­
ers. W hat ap p e llan ts  seek  to p ro tec t, how ever, is 
th e ir  rig h t to re s id e  in th e  City by ow ning o r renting  
housing. The c ru x  of th e ir  c la im  is no t d ep riv a tio n  of 
p ro p e rty  w ithout due p rocess [i.e., th e  “p ro p e rty  r ig h t” 
of a lessee  or te n a n t] , bu t v io lation  of eq u a l p ro tec ­
tion.

In  o rd e r to have  stand ing  to a s se r t th a t a  s ta te  h as  
denied  p la in tiff his constitu tional rig h ts , a  p la in tiff is 
req u ire d  to show  “a p e rso n a l s tak e  in th e  outcom e of 
th e  c o n tro v e rsy ”. B a k e r  v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 
82 S. Ct. 691, 7 L. ed. 2d 663 (1961). He m u st be ad ­
v e rse ly  affec ted  to a  jud ic ia lly  cognizable d eg ree  by  
th e  g o vernm en t ac tion  he seeks to challenge. See, gen­
era lly , D avis, Standing: T a xp a yers  and Others, 35 
U. Chi. L. Rev. 601 (1968). H ere  p la in tiffs ’ s tak e  in  th e  
outcom e of the  case  is im m ed ia te  and  p e rso n a l and

’The com plain t describes th e  Negro residen ts of Englew ood as 
bo th  ren te rs  and  ow ners. H ow ever, fo r th e  purposes of th is  
appeal, appellan ts concede th a t they  are  tenants. B rie f fo r 
A ppellants, p. 15.



8 A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY OF F A IR F IE L D

th e y  s ta n d  to  su ffe r econom ic in ju ry  if they  lose. The 
r ig h t w hich  th ey  allege  h as  b een  v io lated ; n am ely , the  
r ig h t no t to  be su b jec ted  to  ra c ia l  d isc rim in a tio n  by 
s ta te  action, is one w hich fa lls  w ith in  a  constitu tionally  
p ro tec ted  a rea . Cf. Jones  v. A l fred  H. M a yer  Co., 392 
U.S. 409, 88 S. Ct. 2188, 20 L. ed. 2d 1189 (1968).

If th e  p la in tiffs ’ a lleg a tio n s  a re  co rrec t, th e  a d v e rse  
effec ts  on th e m  w ould be “im m ed ia te  and  p e rso n ­
a l” . See N orw a lk  Core v. N orw a lk  R e d e v e lo p m e n t  
A g en c y ,  395 F. 2d 920, 927 (2d Cir. 1968). U nder N or­
w alk ,  u rb a n  ren ew al p ro jec t res id en ts  h av e  stand ing  
to  allege  th a t  a p lan  th a t fo rces th e m  out of th e  city  
in  w hich th ey  w ere resid ing  d ep rives th em  of equal 
p ro tec tio n  of th e  law s. P la in tiffs ’ “s ta k e ” in  th is case  
is th e ir  [a lleged] d isp lacem en t fro m  th e  com m unity  
w ith  th e  re su ltin g  personal, econom ic and  socia l d is­
location. W hether p la in tiffs  can  p rove  d isp lacem en t is 
fo r th e  t r ia l  cou rt to de term ine .

As th e  S up rem e C ourt m ad e  c le a r  in  F last v. Cohen, 
392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. ed. 2d 947 (1988), th e  
“s tan d in g ” doctrine  focuses on th e  seek ing  of ad ju d i­
ca tio n  by a  p a r ty  and  not on th e  issues he w ishes 
to  h ave  ad jud ica ted . The C ourt po in ted  out th a t  in  de­
cid ing  the  question  of s tand ing , it is no t re le v a n t th a t 
th e  su b stan tiv e  issues in th e  litig a tio n  m ig h t be non- 
ju s tic iab le . In  F las t  the  C ourt held  th a t a  fe d e ra l ta x - 
p a y e r  h ad  stand ing  to challenge unconstitu tio n a l ta x ­
ing  and  spending p ro g ra m s  if th e  ta x p a y e r  d e m o n s tra t­
ed th e  n e c e ssa ry  s tak e  in  th e  outcom e of th e  litiga tion  
to  sa tisfy  A rtic le  III  of the  C onstitution, i.e., th e  ta x ­
p a y e r  m u s t e s tab lish  a link  be tw een  his s ta tu s  as a



A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY O F F A IR F IE L D  9

ta x p a y e r  and  th e  en a c tm e n t a ttack ed , and  he  “m u s t 
e s tab lish  a  nexus be tw een  th a t  s ta tu s  and  th e  p re ­
cise  n a tu re  of the  constitu tional in frin g em en t a lleg ed ” 
Flast,  supra,  a t 102.

The sole case  re lied  on by the  cou rt below  in 
su ppo rt of its  den ia l of s tand ing  w as Johnson v. R e d e ­
v e lo p m e n t  A g en c y  of the City of Oakland, 317 F. 2d 
872 (9th Cir. 1963), Cert, denied 375 U.S. 915 (1963), a  
case  in  w hich  stand ing  w as denied  re s id en ts  of a fed ­
e ra lly  a ss is ted  u rb a n  ren ew al p ro jec t who w ere  ch a l­
leng ing  a  fa ilu re  to com ply w ith  the  re q u ire m e n ts  of 
a  fe d e ra l u rb a n  ren ew al law. Johnson  is no t apposite  
to the  p re se n t case. In  Johnson  th e  ap p e lla te  cou rt 
d e a lt only w ith  s tan d in g  u n d er th e  H ousing A ct of 
1949. Johnson, a t 874. In  the  case  sub judice,  s tan d in g  
to  a s s e r t  a  dep riv a tio n  of equal p ro tec tio n  of th e  law s 
is claim ed . Johnson  h a s  been  re je c te d  in subsequen t 
decisions. See N orw alk , supra; W es tern  Addition C om ­
m u n i ty  Organization v. W eaver,  294 F. Supp. 433, 
442 (N.D. Cal. 1968); Powelton Civil H om e Owners  
A s s ’n v. Dept, of Housing and Urban Dev. 284 F. Supp. 
809 (E.D. P a . 1968).

S im ilarly , th e  concep t of s tand ing  h as  been b ro ad ­
ened to allow  o rgan iza tions and  ind iv iduals re p re se n t­
ing  “th e  co m m u n ity ” to c la im  th a t  th e  rou ting  of a h igh ­
w ay d isc rim in a te s  ag a in s t N egroes by destroy ing  a 
N egro  business com m unity , in ju rin g  N egro ed u ca ­
tional in stitu tions and  o therw ise  h a rm in g  a  N egro  com ­
m unity . N ashvil le  1-40 S teering  C om m . v. Ellington, 
387 F. 2d 179 (6th Cir. 1967), Cert, denied 19 L. ed. 
2d 982 (1968).



10 A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY O F F A IR F IE L D

We hold th a t  th e  N egro  re s id en ts  of the  E nglew ood 
a re a  of F a irf ie ld  h av e  s tan d in g  to b rin g  th is action. 
S ince p la in tiffs  h av e  standing , we m u st decide w heth ­
e r th e  D is tric t C ourt e rre d  in g ran tin g  d e fen d an ts’ m o­
tions to d ism iss and  fo r su m m a ry  judgm en t.

E Q U A L  P R O T E C T IO N

The court below  considered  m a tte rs  ou tside th e  p le ad ­
ings; th e re fo re , th e  m otion m u st be tre a te d  as a  m o­
tion  for su m m a ry  judgm ent. R ule 12(b), F e d e ra l R ules 
of Civil P ro ced u re . See Dinwiddle v. B row n , 230 F. 
2d 465 (5th Cir. 1956), C ert, denied  351 U.S. 971, 76 S. Ct. 
1041, 100 L. e d .1490 (1956).

U nder F e d e ra l R ule of Civil P ro c e d u re  56(c), 28 U. 
S.C.A., a  m otion fo r su m m a ry  ju d g m en t is p ro p er if 
th e  p lead ings, adm issions, affidav its , etc., show  th a t 
“th e re  is no genuine issue as to any  m a te r ia l  fa c t 
and  th a t th e  m oving  p a r ty  is en titled  to ju d g m en t as 
a  m a tte r  of law ”. R ule 56 should be invoked cau tio u s­
ly  in  o rd e r  to allow  a  full t r ia l  w here  th e re  is bona 
fide d ispu te  of fac ts. The law  is w ell se ttled  th a t  in  
o rd e r to en title  th e  m oving  p a r ty  to su m m a ry  ju d g ­
m e n t as a  m a tte r  of law , it m u s t be quite  c le a r  “w hat 
th e  tru th  is ”. National Screen  Serv ice  Corp. v. Poster  
E xchange ,  Inc., 305 F. 2d 647 (5th Cir. 1962). The 
c o u rt’s duty  is not to decide fa c tu a l issues on su m m a ry  
jud g m en t, bu t only to d e te rm in e  w hether th e re  a re  
fa c tu a l issues to be tried . Slagle v. United States ,  228 
F. 2d 673 (5th Cir. 1956).



A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY O F F A IR F IE L D  11

U nlike m a n y  su m m a ry  ju d g m en t actions, th e  D is­
tr ic t  C ourt in  th is in s tan ce  held  a h ea rin g  and  h e a rd  
testim ony . P la in tiffs  m oved for a  con tinuance of th a t 
h ea rin g  w hich  w as denied. The t r i a l  c o u rt’s d isposal of 
th e  issues on su m m a ry  ju d g m en t h as  re su lted  in  an  
in co m p le te  reco rd . H ow ever, fro m  th a t h earin g , it is 
c lea r  th a t the  City of F a irf ie ld  w as involved in  th e  
finan c in g  and  prom otion  of th e  redev e lo p m en t p ro jec t 
in  Englew ood. A lthough th e re  is no ev idence a t th is  
s tag e  th a t  E ng le  R ea lty  h as  an  a g re e m e n t or c o n tra c t 
to  p u rch ase  th e  p ro p e rty  fro m  th e  p ro p e rty  ow ners o r 
th a t  p la in tiffs , if d isp laced , would h av e  to  m ove out­
side F a irfie ld , p la in tiffs  m a y  be ab le to show  th a t  the 
City will know ingly and  ac tiv e ly  p re c ip ita te  th e  d is­
loca tion  of p erso n s who, b ecau se  of a city-w ide p ra c ­
tice  of re s id en tia l d iscrim ination , will h av e  no p lace  
to  go. E xclusion  by p h y sica l d isp lacem en t re su ltin g  
fro m  public d isc rim in a tio n  is no less ob jectionab le  th a n  
such  exclusion  by  rezoning. Cf. Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 
364 U.S. 339, 81 S. Ct. 125, 5 L. ed. 2d 110' (1960); 
B uchanan  v. W arley ,  245 U.S. 60, 38 S. Ct. 16, 62 
L. ed. 149 (1917). W here th e re  is s ta te  involvem ent, th e  
fa c t th a t  th e  decision to  d isc rim in a te  m a y  be m ad e  
by  p r iv a te  ind iv idual r a th e r  th a n  a  public official 
is no t decisive. See R e i tm a n  v. M ulkey ,  387 U.S. 369, 
87 S. Ct. 1627, 18 L. ed. 2d 830 (1967); Shelley  v. 
K ra em er ,  334 U.S. 1, 68 S. Ct. 836, 92 L.ed. 1161 (1948). 
Cf. Jones  v. A l fred  H. M oyer  Co., supra. U nd er 
th e  un ique c irc u m stan c es  of th is  case  th e  City m ay  in ­
volve itse lf in  th e  d isc rim in a to ry  o p era tion  of th e  p r i­
v a te  housing  m a rk e t. T he City acknow ledges th a t in-



12 A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY O F F A IR F IE L D

sta llin g  s to rm  sew ers  and  covering  th e  “t a r  d itch” is 
a  su b s ta n tia l p ro jec t.2

T h ere  is little  doubt th a t  s ta te  ac tion  is p resen t. 
Cf. Shelly  v. K ra em er ,  su p ra , 334 U.S. a t 12 (d ic tu m ); 
M arsh  v. A la b a m a , 326 U.S. 501, 66 S. Ct, 276, 90 L. 
ed. 265 (1946); S m ith  v. A llw righ t,  321 U.S. 649, 664, 
64 S. Ct. 757, 88 L. ed. 987, 996, 151 A LR 1110 (1943); 
H o m e Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Los  Angeles ,  227 U.S, 
278, 33 S. Ct. 312, 57 L. ed. 510 (1913). The issue 
fo r th e  t r ia l  co u rt to d e te rm in e  is w hether th a t  s ta te  
ac tio n  is constitu tional. The eq u a l p ro tec tio n  c lau se  
of th e  F o u rte e n th  A m endm en t p roh ib its  s ta te  descrim - 
in a to ry  ac tio n  of ev e ry  kind, including  s ta te  p a r tic i­
p a tion  th ro u g h  any  a rra n g e m e n t, m an ag em e n t, funds 
or p ro p erty . Cooper v. Aaron,  358 U.S. 1, 4, 78 S. Ct. 
1397, 1401, 3 L. ed. 2d 1, 9 (1958). P r iv a te  conduct a- 
b ridg ing  ind iv idual r ig h ts  does no t v io la te  th e  A m end­
m e n t un less to some; s ign ifican t extent: th e  s ta te  in  
an y  of its  m an ifesta tio n s  h a s  becom e involved in  it. 
715, 722, 81 S. Ct. 856, 6 L. ed. 2d 45 (1961). “Only 
by  sifting  fa c ts  and  w eighing c irc u m stan c es  can  the 
nonobvious invo lvem en t of th e  s ta te  in  p r iv a te  conduct 
be a ttr ib u te d  its  tru e  s ign ificance .” Burton, Id.

P R O P E R  P A R T IE S

The D is tric t C ourt held  th a t  the execu tive  d ire c to r  of 
th e  H ousing A uthority , th e  m e m b ers  of th e  City Coun­
cil, th e  m e m b ers  of th e  P lan n in g  C om m ission and  C. 
J. D onald a re  not p ro p er p a rtie s . The C ourt im plied

2See th e  C ity’s m otion to  dissolve the  tem porary  in junction  p end ­
ing th e  determ ina tion  of th e  case.



A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY O F F A IR F IE L D  13

th a t th e  F a irf ie ld  R ousing  A uthority  and  th e  m a y o r of 
F a irf ie ld  w ere  also  no t p ro p e r p a r tie s .3

R ule 20, P’e d e ra l R ules of Civil P ro ced u re , allow s a 
p la in tiff to  jo in  as a  p a r ty  one who h a s  som e re la tio n  
to  th e  action  w h ere  th a t  re la tio n  is no t so close as  to 
ca teg o rize  h im  as  a  n e c e ssa ry  or ind ispensab le  p a rty . 
T he prov isions fo r p erm issiv e  jo in d er u n d er R ule 20 
a re  v e ry  b ro ad  and  th e  co u rt is given d isc re tio n  to 
decide th e  scope of the  civil ac tion  and  to m a k e  such  
o rd e rs  as  w ill p rev en t delay  or p re jud ice . See W right, 
The L a w  of F edera l Court, 264 (1963). U pon rem an d , 
th e  D is tr ic t C ourt should ag a in  rev iew  th e  question  of 
p a r tie s  u n d er th e  ev idence and  law  as it is th e n  de­
veloped. U pon th e  p re se n t s ta te  of th e  reco rd  th is  C ourt 
canno t say  th a t  th e se  p a r tie s  a re  no t p ro p e r p a rtie s .

A ppellan ts u rg e  th is C ourt to re v e rse  th e  D is tric t 
C o u rt’s den ia l of th e  m otion  fo r a  p re lim in a ry  in ju n c­
tion in  th e  ev en t th a t  th is  C ourt ag ree s  w ith  ap p e llan ts’ 
conten tions reg a rd in g  th e ir  s tand ing  and  c la im  a- 
g a in st w hich re lie f  m a y  be g ran ted . H ow ever, on th e  
b asis  of th e  reco rd  before us and  th e  fu r th e r  p ro ceed ­
ings to be  held  in th e  D is tric t Court, w e w ill leav e  th a t  
question  open for th e  D istric t Judge.

A ppellan ts would h av e  us in co rp o ra te  th e  regu la tions 
and  policy d irec tiv es  of th e  U nited  S ta tes  D ep artm en t 
of H ousing and  U rb an  D evelopm ent, T itle  VI, into the. 
T h irteen th  and  F o u rteen th  A m endm en ts  as m in im um

3See o rig ina l record , p. 110; find ings of fac t an d  conclusions of law , 
pp  4-5. T he D istric t C ourt also held  th a t  the  C ity  clerk  w as 
n o t a p ro p er party . No rev e rsa l of th is  holding: is sought.



14 A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY O F F A IR F IE L D

s ta n d a rd s  in th is  housing  p rob lem . W e n eed  not c ro ss 
th is  th resh o ld  of con titu tional law. The D is tric t C ourt 
e r re d  in  g ran tin g  d e fen d an ts’ m otions to d ism iss and  
fo r su m m a ry  judgm ent. D efendan ts  should be req u ire d  
to  file an sw ers  and  th e  p a r tie s  allow ed to  u n d ertak e  
d iscovery  p u rsu a n t to th e  F e d e ra l R ules of Civil P ro ­
cedure . We, the re fo re , re m a n d  th is  case  to th e  D is tric t 
C ourt fo r p roceed ings consisten t w ith  th is  opinion.

R E V E R S E D  AND REM A N D ED

COLEMAN, C ircu it Judge, d issen ting:

This case, in m y  opinion, does not p re se n t a  fe d e ra l 
question. W ith defe ren ce  to  th e  view s of m y  h ighly  
re sp ec ted  C olleagues, the  effect of th e ir  decision is to 
convert th e  fe d e ra l courts into loca l d ra in a g e  d itch  
superv iso rs .

The tru th  of th e  co n tro v ersy  is p la in  and  u n m is­
tak ab le . I see no ju stifica tio n  fo r s tra in in g  over w heth ­
e r  the  D is tric t Ju d g e  did or did not, should or should 
not have, ac ted  u n d e r R ule 12(b) o r R ule 56, F.R.Civ. 
P . This is of no re a l  sign ificance, fo r th e  d ism issa l w as 
em inen tly  c o rre c t in  any  event.

The C ourt h e a rd  te stim o n y  of w itnesses, bu t th is  w as 
a t  the  re q u e s t of th e  p la in tiffs, ev iden tly  as a  su b sti­
tu te  fo r coun ter-affidav its . E v en  so, th is  proof gave 
th e  p la in tiffs  no com fort and  it p roduced  no fa c tu a l 
dispute. In  his o rd e r  d ism issing  th e  su it Ju d g e  Allgood 
w rote: “T here  is no conflict in th e  ev idence p resen ted



A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY O F F A IR F IE L D  15

to  th e  C ourt and  no g en era l issue  of m a te r ia l  fac t. U p­
on th e  p lead ings now  before th e  Court, to g e th e r w ith 
th e  affidav its , exhibits, and  te stim ony  of th e  w itnesses 
th e re  is no cause  of ac tion  * * * n o r fro m  th e  fac ts  
p re sen te d  could the  p la in tiffs  se t fo rth  a c la im  upon 
w hich re lie f m a y  be g ra n te d ”.

In  m y  opinion, he w as rig h t e ith e r w ay and  both 
w ays. A re m a n d  will no t develop any  add itional m a ­
te r ia l  fac ts.

If  we assu m e  th a t p la in tiffs  h ad  stand ing  to  sue and  
th a t  a ll n a m e d  defendan ts  w ere  p ro p er p a rtie s , th e  
re su lt should be the  sam e. I would th e re fo re  a tta c h  no 
im p o rtan ce  to th ese  p ro ced u ra l n ice tie s  bu t would dis­
pose of th is  case  as law  and  ju stice  req u ire , §2106, T itle 
28, U.S.C.A. To fa il to do so is to inflict serious d am ag e  
upon p a r tie s  ag a in st w hom  no fed e ra l cau se  of action  
is, or could be, shown.

A lthough th e  im p ro v em en ts  v isualized  fo r th is  slum  
a re a  w ere  to be done by p riv a te  indiv iduals, using  no 
public funds, w ith  no exerc ise  of em inen t dom ain, the 
m a jo rity  of the  p an e l th in k s a  case  is or m ig h t be 
p resen ted . Y et, th ey  decline to  decide th e  only re a l 
issue  ra ise d  by  the  p la in tiff — a fe rv id  contention, 
bo th  below  and  on appeal, th a t  even  as betw een  p riv ­
a te  p a r tie s  th e  reg u la tio n s  an d  policies of th e  U nited  
S ta tes  D ep a rtm en t of H ousing and  U rb an  D evelopm ent 
w ith  re fe ren c e  to persons d isp laced  by publicly  spon­
so red  u rb a n  ren ew al a re  th e  m in im um  s tan d a rd s  for 
th e  d e te rm in a tio n  of T h irteen th  and  F o u rteen th  A- 
m en d m en t rig h ts  in the  area  of “race and housing”



16 A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY OF F A IR F IE L D

(em p h asis  m ine.). I t  is secondarily  a rg u ed  th a t  in  any 
even t th e  rem o v a l of p la in tiffs  a t th e  te rm in a tio n  of 
th e ir  law fu l r ig h t to occupy th e  p ro p e rty  w ould v io la te  
th e  sam e  righ ts.

I, too, would not decide th e se  issues in  th is  case  -— 
bu t fo r a d iffe ren t reason . The fac ts , v iew ed in  th e  
ligh t m ost fav o rab le  to the  p la in tiffs, s im p ly  do not 
p re se n t a  su b s tan tia l fe d e ra l question.

F o r  n e a r ly  tw o y ea rs , in  th e  m id st of w ildly e sc a la t­
ing constru c tio n  costs and  in te re s t ra te s , th ese  p la in ­
tiff-ap p e llan ts  h av e  blocked th e  p roposed  co n stru c tio n  
of a  H oliday Inn  on new  In te rs ta te  H ighw ay 59 in  the  
n o rth e a s t co rn e r of F a irfie ld , A lab am a, im m ed ia te ly  
a d ja c e n t to  th e  com m on b o u ndary  betw een  F a irf ie ld  
and  B irm ingham . Yet, th e  und ispu ted  fa c t is th a t on 
A ugust 9, 1968 six ty-five to  seven ty  p e r  cen t of the  
build ings in the  a re a  involved w ere  v a c a n t and  th e re  
w ere  no t “tw o build ings in  the  a re a  fit fo r h u m a n  oc­
cu p an cy ”. In  th e ir  b rie f th e  p la in tiff-ap p e llan ts  re fe r  
to the  a re a  as “a  slum  by any  com m on defin ition  of 
th e  te rm ” . P la in tiffs  a g re e  th a t “ 90% of th e  build ings 
a re  s tru c tu ra lly  defective and  do not m e e t th e  h ea lth  
s ta n d a rd s  of the  City of F a irf ie ld  and  th e  build ings 
a re  su b jec t to  being condem ned  fo r h ea lth  re a so n s”. 
The s tre e ts  a re  no t paved. C om m unity  fac ilitie s  a re  
lack ing , and a d ra in a g e  d itch  ru n s th ro u g h  th e  en tire  
a rea . The m a jo rity  of th e  re s id en ts  a re  te n an ts  and  
94% of th em  a re  of the  b lack  race . In  1964, due to th e  
p roposed  co nstruc tion  of a  new  In te rs ta te  H ighw ay th e  
City rezoned  the  a re a  from  res id en tia l to  re s id en tia l-



A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY O F F A IR F IE L D  17

com m ercia l. So fa r  as th e  reco rd  shows th is ac tion  
w as not th e n  a ttack ed , a d m in is tra tiv e ly  or jud icially .

In  June, 1967, th e  F a irf ie ld  H ousing A uthority  in iti­
a te d  an  u rb a n  ren ew al p ro jec t in  th e  E nglew ood a re a  
of th e  City of F a irfie ld . The affidav it of th e  A ssis tan t 
A d m in is tra to r for R enew al A ssistance, R egion III, U- 
n ited  S ta tes  D ep a rtm en t of H ousing and  U rb an  D e­
velopm en t (H UD ), shows th a t in  th e  en tire  a re a  (con­
sid e rab ly  la rg e r  th a n  th a t involved in th is  su it) the  
p ro je c t would h av e  involved 137 re s id en tia l s tru c tu re s , 
of w hich 87% w ere  c lassified  as su b stan d ard . This fed ­
e ra l official deposed th a t it w as a  slum  a re a  and  
would qualify  for fed e ra l u rb a n  ren ew al assis tance . 
The H ousing A uthority  fo r F a irfie ld , A labam a, w as 
n ev e r ab le to  ob ta in  ap p ro v a l for th is  u rb a n  ren ew al 
p ro jec t. F ro m  le tte rs  rece iv ed  and  conferences held  
it w as p la in ly  a p p a re n t by m id -su m m er of 1967 th a t 
th e re  w as not going to be any  pro jec t. The p ro jec t w as 
dead, bu t it w as not fo rm a lly  “pronounced  d ead ” un til 
th e  A ss is tan t A d m in is tra to r pu t it in a  le tte r  da ted  
F e b ru a ry  8, 1968. In his deposition, the A ssis tan t A d­
m in is tra to r  of HUD sta ted ,

“I th e re fo re  concluded th a t  ad eq u a te  re lo c a ­
tion  reso u rces  w ere not av a ilab le  to re lo ca te  
all fam ilies  and  ind iv iduals living in  th e  p ro j­
ect a re a  and  th a t n e ith e r the  City no r the  
H ousing A uthority  p lanned  to build  re p la c e ­
m en t housing in the  City of F a irf ie ld  for N e­
groes d isp laced  by th e  p roposed  Englew ood 
U rb an  R enew al P ro jec t. My office th e re fo re  
concluded th a t th e  D ep a rtm en t of H ousing and



18 A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY O F F A IR F IE L D

U rb an  D evelopm ent could not continue to  p ro ­
cess th e  ap p lica tion  of th e  F a irfie ld , A lab am a  
H ousing A uthority  and  it w as re tu rn e d  to the  
H ousing A uthority  un d er cover of m y  le tte r  of 
F e b ru a ry  8, 1968”.

The cover le tte r , a tta c h e d  as E x h ib it A to th e  depo­
sition, s ta ted , “A lthough a  s in cere  effo rt h a s  been  
m ad e  by all concerned  and  sev e ra l a lte rn a tiv e s  h av e  
been  considered, the  b asic  p rob lem s still ex is t”. HUD 
deliv ered  the  coup de grace  on F e b ru a ry  8 bu t th is  su it 
w as no t filed  un til O ctober 2. I t is th u s  d em o n stra ted  
beyond cav il th a t  th e  u rb a n  ren ew al p ro jec t h ad  ex ­
p ired , n ev e r to rise  again , e ight m onths before th is  su it 
w as brought. The u rb a n  ren ew al p ro jec t h ad  no re a l 
re le v an ce  to the  m e rits  of th is  case.. I t  w as undoubted­
ly  a closed c h a p te r  w hen p r iv a te  p a r tie s  decided  to  
see w hat they  could do w ith  p riv a te  funds to w ard  c le a r ­
ing and  im prov ing  a p a r t  of th e  a re a  fo rm erly  included  
in th e  dead  p ro jec t.

W hen it b ecam e  g en era lly  know n th a t  th e  re q u ire ­
m en ts  of HUD could not be m e t and  th a t th e  u rb a n  
ren ew al p ro jec t w as doom ed, E ngel R ea lty  C om pany, 
a pr iva te  enterprise,  decided  to t r y  to do som eth ing  
abou t it. I t developed a  p lan  by w hich  it hoped  w ith 
non-public funds to acq u ire  and  develop th e  a re a  by 
v o lu n ta ry  p u rch ases  from  th e  ow ners. This, of course, 
w ould h av e  been  su b jec t to th e  rig h ts  of te n a n ts  to  
re m a in  until the  end of th e ir  re sp ec tiv e  te rm s  of oc­
cupancy , un less E ngel should also acq u ire  those rig h ts  
by p r iv a te  barg a in in g . E ngel w as ac tin g  in  its  own



A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY O F F A IR F IE L D  19

rig h t and  no t as ag en t of any defendan t in  th is  case. 
N eith er h a d  E ngel been  involved in  th e  ill-fa ted  u rb a n  
ren ew a l p ro jec t. No public m oney would be em ployed. 
E m in en t dom ain  could not be, invoked.

E x ce p t fo r one d e ta il th e  p la n  w as to ta lly  d isasso ­
c ia te d  fro m  any public au th o rity  of any  kind. E ngel 
R ea lty  though t th a t th e  best possib le chance for a c ­
q u iring  th e  p ro p e rty  and  developing it a t  no loss to 
those  assu m in g  th e  risk  would be to build a m otel on 
it. A m otel w as out of th e  question  un less th e  p re ­
v iously  m en tioned  open d ra in a g e  d itch  could be cov­
ered . The cost of th is  w as so h igh  th a t  E n g e l w ent to 
th e  C ity of F a irf ie ld  and  on D ecem ber 4, 1967, ob ta ined  
th e  w ritten  a g ree m en t of the  au th o rities  th a t if a m o­
te l could be built th e  City would cover th e  d ra in ag e  
ditch, hoping th a t  ta x  reven u es fro m  th e  new  co n stru c­
tion  w ould am o rtize  the  expense.

The, a g ree m en t of th e  City of F a irfie ld  to do th a t 
w hich  it c lea rly  h ad  the  au th o rity  to  do (re g a rd le ss  of 
w hether a  m otel w as o r w as no t bu ilt) fu rn ished  the  
s ta rv e d  shadow  of th e  fe d e ra l question  w hich is sought 
to  be ra ise d  in th is case.

The ow ners of the  p ro p e rty  in F a irf ie ld  a re  under no 
com pulsion  to sell th e ir  p roperty . T hey canno t be p la c ­
ed un d er com pulsion. The te n an ts  will no t have  to leave 
u n til th e ir  te rm s  expire . This th ey  could be, req u ired  
to  do re g a rd le ss  of w hether a m o te l is built. They a re  
liv ing  in  build ings not f it fo r  h u m a n  hab ita tion , sub­
je c t to condem nation . Y et, th e  fed e ra l courts a re  now 
being  used  to p e rp e tu a te  th is  im possib le situation. Still



20 A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY O F F A IR F IE L D

w orse, th ey  a re  being u sed  to c ircu m v en t an  econom i­
ca lly  feasib le  re v ita liz a tio n  of th e  b ligh ted  a rea .

W ith deference to  m y  C olleagues, I m u s t say  th a t 
th is  c a se  offers th e  s lim m est su ppo rt I h av e  e v e r  seen  
fo r fe d e ra l in te rv en tio n  in  a p u re ly  local m a tte r  (a t 
th e  B o ard  of A ld erm en  level).

P u ttin g  th is  cover on an  open d ra in a g e  d itch  is a 
m u n ic ip a l function  and  a  p ro g ress iv e  s tep  in  any  h eav i­
ly  popu la ted  a re a , re g a rd le ss  of its ra c ia l  com position. 
C overing th is  d ra in a g e  d itch  canno t possib ly  h av e  any  
com pulsive effect on anybody. I t w ill no t fo rce  any  
ow ner to sell his p ro p e rty  to anybody. I t w ill no t con­
tro l th e  p rice  w hich he m a y  dem an d  and  collect, if he 
w ishes to  sell a t  all. I t  w ill no t sh o rten  th e  te rm  for 
w hich any  te n a n t h as  co n trac ted . I t  w ill lead  to  p ro g ­
ress , to new  build ings, an d  to new  econom ic oppor­
tun ities  — a le g itim a te  ob ject anyw here. B efore today  
I h ad  no t though t th a t  w here no public funds or public 
com pulsion  is involved th e  C onstitu tion req u ire s  th a t a 
te n an t, even if of a  m in o rity  race , m ay  a t h is option 
re m a in  on ren te d  p rem ise s  beyond th e  ex p ira tio n  of 
h is te rm  and  m a y  enforce th a t option in  th e  fed e ra l 
courts.

If a  case  is to req u ire  decision as  hav ing  ra ise d  a 
su b s ta n tia l fe d e ra l question  th e  C onstitu tion of th e  U- 
n ited  S ta tes , a  tre a ty , o r a  fe d e ra l s ta tu te  m u st som e­
w here  be ap p licab le  o r a  le a s t in  issue. This case  can ­
not sq u a re  w ith  th a t s tan d ard . V o lun ta ry  p u rch ases  
and  sa les  of p r iv a te  p ro p e rty  betw een  w illing se lle rs



A RRIN G TO N , E T  AL v. CITY O F F A IR F IE L D  21 
and  w illing buyers, w hen no fed e ra lly  g u a ra n te e d  p r iv ­
ilege or im m u n ity  is denied, and  w hen n e ith e r  p a r ty  
h a s  any  th ough t of a ttem p tin g  to com pel a  c itizen  to do 
som eth ing  he  h as  a  r ig h t to  re fu se  to  do, a re  not p ro ­
h ib ited  or inh ib ited  by th e  C onstitu tion or law s of th e  
U nited  S ta tes. “S ifting fac ts  and  w eighing c irc u m ­
s ta n c e s” of th e  actions and  re la tionsh ip s h e re  involved, 
B urton  v. W ilm ing ton  P ark ing  A u thority ,  365 U.S. 722 
(1961) th e re  is no d isc rim n a to ry  s ta te  ac tion  in  th is 
case.

So, in  add ition  to w hat I sa id  in  th e  beginning  about 
becom ing local d ra in a g e  d itch  superv iso rs , th is  deci­
sion h a s  ano ther fa r-re a c h in g  po ten tia l: If a  ra c ia l 
a rg u m e n t can  be thought of, and  th a t is no t h a rd  to do, 
th e  fe d e ra l cou rts  a re  now  se t to in te rv en e  in  any  q u a r ­
re l  a ris in g  out of p r iv a te  slum  c lea ran ce  an d  re h a b il­
ita tion , r ig h t dow n to  the  le a s t detail.

The Ju d g m en t of th e  D istric t C ourt ought to be a f­
firm ed , so I resp ec tfu lly  d issent.

Adm. Office, U.S. Courts—Scofields’ Q uality  Prin ters, Inc., N. O., La.