holding that, where a complaint alleged discrimination against particular races by city housing relocation program and questions of fact common to all members, the “fact that some members of the class were personally satisfied with the defendants’ relocation efforts is irrelevant.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that, where a complaint alleged discrimination against particular races by city housing relocation program and questions of fact common to all members, the “fact that some members of the class were personally satisfied with the defendants’ relocation efforts is irrelevant.”
- holding displaced residents may sue both federal and local agencies as well as private developers under section 105(c) for failing to relocate them satisfactorily as provided for in the statute or as contractually required
- requiring proof that a governmental standard is being met “in general” as adequately for non-Whites as it is for Whites
- “When a motion to dismiss a complaint is made, [Rule 54(c) ] is read in conjunction with Rules 8, 12 and 15, and its clear and long-accepted meaning is that a complaint should not be dismissed for legal insufficiency except where there is a failure to state a claim on which some relief, not limited by the request in the complaint, can be granted.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HAYS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I would affirm the determination of the district court.
The issues which the plaintiffs offer are not justiciable and the remedies they seek are not within the power of the court to grant. See Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113, 131-132 , 60 S.Ct. 869, 879 , 84 L.Ed. 1108 (1940) (“The interference of the courts with the performance of the ordinary duties of the executive departments of the Government, would be productive of nothing but mischief,” quoting Decatur v. Paulding, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 497, 516 , 10 L.Ed. 559 (1840)); Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33 , 75 S.Ct. 98, 102 , 99 L.Ed. 27 (1954) (“We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable”).
The holding that plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the action is another formulation of the same principles. See Green Street Association v. Daley, 373 F.2d 1 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 932 , 87 S.Ct. 2054 , 18 L.Ed.2d 995 (1967); Berry v. Housing and Home Finance Agency, 340 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1965) (per curiam); Johnson v. Redevelopment Agency, 317 F.2d 872 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 915 , 84 S.Ct. 216 , 11 L.Ed.2d 154 (1963); Pittsburgh Hotels Association v. Urban Redevelopment Authority, 309 F.2d 186 (3d Cir. 1962), cert. denied sub. nom. Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Urban Redevelopment Authority, 372 U.S. 916 , 83 S.Ct. 730 , 9 L.Ed.2d 723 (1963); Taft Hotel Corp. v. Housing and Home Finance Agency, 262 F.2d 307 (2d Cir. 1958) (per curiam), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 967 , 79 S.Ct. 880 , 3 L.Ed.2d 835 (1959); Allied-City Wide, Inc. v. Cole, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 277 , 230 F.2d 827 (1956) (per curiam).
The Federal courts cannot administer s the housing program. Í