Gonzales v. Sheely

96 F. Supp. 1004, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2556
CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMarch 26, 1951
DocketCiv. 1473
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 96 F. Supp. 1004 (Gonzales v. Sheely) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gonzales v. Sheely, 96 F. Supp. 1004, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2556 (D. Ariz. 1951).

Opinion

LING, District Judge.

By this action petitioners seek to redress the deprivation by respondents herein, under color of state law, of Petitioners’ civil rights, secured to them by the laws of the United States, and as guaranteed to them by the laws and Constitution of the United States.

The principle established in Westminster School District of Orange County v. Mendez, 9 Cir., 161 F.2d 774 appears to be controlling.

The segregation practices of the school authorities of the Westminster District denounced by the Court of Appeals, are comparable with those followed in the Tolleson District, and I think petitioners are correct in their contention that such practices as applied to them are discriminatory.

Petitioners are entitled to judgment.

Findings of Fact.

I.

It is true that the Tolleson Elementary School District Number 17 is a legally constituted School District in the County of Maricopa, State of Arizona, town of Tolle-son, and Ross L. Sheely, James W. Johnston and Frank E. Babcock are the duly elected, qualified and acting Board of Trustees, and Kenneth Dyer is the School Principal for said School District.

II.

It is true that for many years past the foregoing School District has been and now is the owner of and beneficially interested in, and has and does now maintain, operate, manage, and control the public schools within the above mentioned District and system, for the benefit, health, recreation and education of the public and particularly the children residing in the district and system, and for their use and benefit

III.

It is true that the said school district and system and facilities are being main *1006 tained, operated, managed and controlled by and through their said Board of Trustees and Principal as before named.

IV.

It is true that the respondents and each of them, acting with a common plan, design and purpose, by aiding, abetting, advising and assisting each other in the District and system, have adopted and do practice by regulation, custom and usage, rules and regulations and orders in the operation, management and control of their said district, system and facilities as hereinafter stated.

V.

It is true that for several years last past respondents have, in furtherance and in the execution of their common plan, design and purpose within their system and district, by their regulations, customs and usages, and in execution thereof, adopted and declared and do now adopt and declare: That all children of persons of Mexican or Latin descent or extraction, though citizens of the United States of America, shall be, have been and now are excluded from attending, using, enjoying and receiving the benefits of the education, health and recreation facilities of certain schools within their district and system. That said children of Mexican or Latin descent or extraction are now and have been segregated and required to and must attend and use that certain school in said district and system, reserved for and attended solely and exclusively by children and persons of Mexican or Latin descent or extraction, while other schools are maintained, attended and used exclusively by and for the persons and children purportedly known as white or Anglo-Saxon children.

VI.

It is true that petitioners and each of them, are citizens of the United States, residents and taxpayers of said town, county and district, and it is true that each and all of petitioners are Mexican or Latin descent or extraction.

VII.

It is true that petitioners Porfirio Gonzales is the father and next of friend of Gloria and Mary Ellen Gonzales; that he lives and resides in the Tolleson School District No. 17 as aforesaid, and that said children, all minors, are subject to said rules and regulations of said district and segregated and required to attend separate schools within said district.

VIII.

It is true that.petitioner Faustino Curiel is the father and next of friend of Faustino, Jr. and Dora Curiel, who lives and resides within the aforesaid school district, and said children are subject to said rules and regulations of said school district and segregated and required to attend separate schools within said district.

IX.

It is true that in execution of said rules and regulations, each, every and all the foregoing children are compelled and required to and must attend and use the school in said district reserved for and attended solely and exclusively by the children of Mexican or Latin descent or extraction, and are forbidden, barred and excluded from attending any other school in said district or system, solely for the reason that said children are of Mexican or Latin descent or extraction.

X.

It is true that each of the petitioners is beneficially interested in the privileges, management, control and operation of said school district and system and its facilities, and as a member of the public and a citizen of the United States, is entitled to the use and enjoyment of the school within his district and system and is privileged and entitled to the use of the school in his district without segregation or discrimination because petitioners are of Mexican or Latin descent or extraction.

XI.

It is true that petitioners are of good moral habits, not suffering from disability or infectious disease, and are qualified to be admitted to the use of the schools and facilities within their district and system.

*1007 XII.

It is true that respondents and each of them through their agents and employees, acting with common plan, design and purpose, by aiding, abetting, advising and assisting each other within their district and system, have by their regulations, custom and usage, and in execution thereof, at all times mentioned, barred, precluded and denied petitioners and all others of Mexican or Latin descent or extraction from attending, using and receiving the benefits and education furnished to other children residing in said school district and system, and have segregated said children in school attended solely by children of Mexican or Latin extraction, and have denied them the use and right of attendance in other schools, solely for the reason that petitioners are of Mexican or Latin descent or extraction.

XIII.

It is true that petitioners and others of Mexican or Latin extraction, citizens of the United States, at various times, have sought admission and the right to use and attend other schools within said district, which they otherwise would attend and use, but respondents have, by their regulations, custom and usage, denied them such right and privilege based solely upon the fact that petitioners were of Mexican or Latin descent; that by reason thereof, the injury to petitioners is continuous, great, and irreparable, is calculated to affect and does affect their health, rights, and privileges as citizens of the United States.

XIV.

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

Related

Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Reagan
329 F. Supp. 3d 824 (D. Arizona, 2018)
Berry v. Foster
883 P.2d 470 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1994)
Lubin v. Sybedon Corp.
688 F. Supp. 1425 (S.D. California, 1988)
Hagen v. City of Winnemucca
108 F.R.D. 61 (D. Nevada, 1985)
Edwards v. Alhambra Elementary School District 63
488 P.2d 498 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1971)
Tijerina Et Al. v. Henry Et Al.
398 U.S. 922 (Supreme Court, 1970)
Jordan v. Hutcheson
323 F.2d 597 (Fourth Circuit, 1963)
Romero v. Weakley
131 F. Supp. 818 (S.D. California, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 F. Supp. 1004, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzales-v-sheely-azd-1951.