Reed v. Pittsburgh Board of Public Education

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-30-2003
Reed v. Pgh Bd Pub Ed
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket 02-3478
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Reed v. Pgh Bd Pub Ed" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 520.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/520
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
NO. 02-3478
__________
ANNA REED, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated
applicants for teaching positions
v.
PITTSBURGH BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION;
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH;
JEAN FINK; ELISABETH T. HEALY;
ALEX MATTHEWS; EVELYN B. NEISER;
MAGGIE SCHMIDT; RONALD L.SUBER;
RANDALL TAYLOR; JEAN E. WOOD;
DARLENE HARRIS, individually
Anna Reed,
Appellant
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 99-cv-01150)
District Judge: Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.
__________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 13, 2003
Before: RENDELL, SMITH and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
(Filed : May 30, 2003 )
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Anna Reed instituted this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the School
District of Pittsburgh and the School Board violated her constitutional rights to due
process of law by passing over her in favor of other applicants for teaching positions. She
complains that her rights to substantive and procedural due process were violated,
contends that the defendants breached their contract, seeks mandamus relief, and seeks a
declaratory judgment to resolve her rights under the School Code. In a lengthy opinion,
the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
The District Court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and we
exercise jurisdiction over its final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the
District Court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Spinetti v. Serv. Corp. Int’l, 324
F.3d 212, 215 (3d Cir. 2003).
Ms. Reed phrases the issues on appeal as follows:
(1) Is mistake a defense when a loss is effected by an established process, and
when the loss cannot be said to be random or unauthorized?
(2) Must summary judgment be entered in favor of plaintiff and against
defendant when the school board has not expressed a legitimate reason for
its bypassing Mrs. Reed?
2
The facts and procedural history in this case are well known to the parties and the
Court, therefore we need not restate them here. In fact, the District Court opinion
contains an ample recitation of the facts. See Reed v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Pub. Educ., No.
99-1150 (W.D. Pa. filed Aug. 8, 2002). Further, the District Court engaged in a thorough
analysis of the instant fact pattern and applicable law. The Court held that the facts did
not establish a constitutional claim and distinguished the situation before it from the
situation in Stana v. School Dist. of Pittsburgh, 775 F.2d 122, 126 (3d Cir. 1985), relied
upon heavily by Ms. Reed. The Court then declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over
the breach of contract claim. The District Court’s opinion adequately explains and fully
supports its order and we believe it unnecessary to offer additional explanations and
reasons, as the District Court opinion was thorough and comprehensive. Therefore,
essentially for the reasons set forth in the District Court’s opinion, we will AFFIRM.
_________________________
3
TO THE CLERK OF COURT:
Please file the foregoing Not Precedential Opinion.
/s/ Marjorie O. Rendell
Circuit Judge
4