City of Miami, Florida v. Irvena A. Prymus and Clemmie Young

Fifth Circuit

City of Miami, Florida v. Irvena A. Prymus and Clemmie Young

288 F.2d 465, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4944

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 30, 1961

Docket18654

StatusPublished

This text of 288 F.2d 465 (City of Miami, Florida v. Irvena A. Prymus and Clemmie Young) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Miami, Florida v. Irvena A. Prymus and Clemmie Young, 288 F.2d 465, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4944 (5th Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District Court entered a summary judgment for the plaintiffs and against the City of Miami enjoining the city from denying Negroes the use of publicly-owned swimming pool facilities solely on the ground of race. No effort is made to reargue the matters determined in City of St. Petersburg v. Alsup, 5 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 830. Only three objections are asserted here. The first, and principal one, is the failure of the plaintiffs to exhaust their administrative remedies. There is no substance to this as there exists no administrative remedy or procedure therefor. There was thus nothing to exhaust. The second complaint asserts that one of the two individual plaintiffs was not a resident of the City, or there was a genuine dispute on this point making summary judgment unavailable. This is immaterial since the other plaintiff admittedly is a resident. The third, and last complaint, that this was not a proper case for a class suit *466 of this kind, is likewise without merit. The order is therefore sustained and the case continues to pend before the District Court.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The District Court entered a summary judgment for the plaintiffs and against the City of Miami enjoining the city from denying Negroes the use of publicly-owned swimming pool facilities solely on the ground of race. No effort is made to reargue the matters determined in City of St. Petersburg v. Alsup, 5 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 830. Only three objections are asserted here. The first, and principal one, is the failure of the plaintiffs to exhaust their administrative remedies. There is no substance to this as there exists no administrative remedy or procedure therefor. There was thus nothing to exhaust. The second complaint asserts that one of the two individual plaintiffs was not a resident of the City, or there was a genuine dispute on this point making summary judgment unavailable. This is immaterial since the other plaintiff admittedly is a resident. The third, and last complaint, that this was not a proper case for a class suit *466 of this kind, is likewise without merit. The order is therefore sustained and the case continues to pend before the District Court.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 F.2d 465, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-miami-florida-v-irvena-a-prymus-and-clemmie-young-ca5-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack