Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Bd ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30683 Document: 00516747899 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
May 11, 2023
No. 22-30683 Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
M. C. Moore, as father and next friend to minors Joyce Marie
Moore, Jerry Moore, and Thelma Louise Moore; Henry
Smith, as father and next friend to minors Bennie Smith, Charles
Edward Smith, Shirley Ann Smith, and Earline Smith,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
Tangipahoa Parish School Board, a corporation; C. Glenn
Westmoreland, President; Melissa Martin Stilley,
Superintendent,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:65-CV-15556
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
In this long-standing school desegregation case, the district court
entered an order that would be effective only if no party objected. The
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30683 Document: 00516747899 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
No. 22-30683
plaintiffs objected, blocking the effectiveness of the order from which this
appeal purports to be taken. The appeal is DISMISSED.
We offer a little background. In 1965, the plaintiffs sued Tangipahoa
Parish School Board, claiming equal protection violations under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 stemming from systemic racial segregation. Moore v. Tangipahoa Par.
Sch. Bd., 864 F.3d 401, 403 (5th Cir. 2017). In 1967, the district court issued
its first injunction with the goal of achieving unitary status in the Tangipahoa
Parish School District. Id. Several other injunctions have followed, id., with
other appeals to this court occurring as well. 1
In March 2021, the district court declared provisional unitary status
for the school district with respect to facilities. Since then, the district court
has approved several facility improvements in the school district. On
September 30, 2022, the school board moved to expand and improve
additional facilities throughout the school district. These expansions focus
on classroom additions.
On October 5, 2022, the district court wrote that it granted the school
board’s motion, but only if no party objected:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for court
approval to expand and improve physical plants of schools
throughout the Tangipahoa Parish School District (Rec. Doc.
1700) is GRANTED, provided it is unopposed and in
accordance with existing court orders.
_____________________
1
See, e.g., Moore v. Tangipahoa Par. Sch. Bd., 496 F.2d 696 (5th Cir. 1974); Moore v.
Tangipahoa Par. Sch. Bd., 594 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1979); Moore v. Tangipahoa Par. Sch. Bd.,
843 F.3d 198 (5th Cir. 2016); Moore v. Tangipahoa Par. Sch. Bd., 864 F.3d 401 (5th Cir.
2017); Moore v. Tangipahoa Par. Sch. Bd., 921 F.3d 545 (5th Cir. 2019).
2
Case: 22-30683 Document: 00516747899 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
No. 22-30683
On October 18, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the school
board’s motion and to the court’s order. The plaintiffs nonetheless appealed
the district court’s order to this court.
The parties dispute our appellate jurisdiction. The plaintiffs insist this
court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which provides:
(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this section,
the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from:
(1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the
United States . . . granting, continuing, modifying,
refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to
dissolve or modify injunctions . . .
The school board responds that the district court’s order, which
would be effective “provided it is unopposed,” has no effect because the
plaintiffs formally registered their opposition.
By its own terms, the order has not been granted and has not altered
any injunction. Simply put, it has no effect at all.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
3