The opinion of the court was delivered by: VINCENT L. BRODERICK
VINCENT L. BRODERICK, U.S.D.J.
This litigation brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 USC 706) and other sources of federal law, concerns primarily whether the United States Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") should be required to continue funding of the plaintiff Intercommunity Relations Council ("IRC") under the Head Start program for federally assisted assisted early childhood education after the expiration of IRC's contract at the end of June 1994. Plaintiff has moved for a preliminary injunction preventing termination of its funding. The motion is denied.
IRC contends that panels used in evaluating grant applicants were improperly selected and utilized - a claim which deserves careful evaluation but might militate against IRC's own grant which it seeks to extend as well as against any alteration in grantees. IRC contends the process of evaluating potential grantees for the period beginning in July 1994 was flawed because of errors and inconsistencies, including that numerical ratings of evaluators incorrectly failed to give IRC sufficient credit for awareness of children with special needs in the area. IRC asserts that it has been unable to secure information under the Freedom of Information Act or otherwise to permit it to obtain an overview of the selection process in order to pinpoint other potential errors.
IRC asserts that it was denied equal protection by the procedures followed by HHS.
As set forth in Bridgeport Coalition for Fair Representation v. City of Bridgeport, F.3d , 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 14152, 1994 WL 247075 *3 (2d Cir 1994):
The standard in the Second Circuit for injunctive relief clearly calls for a showing of (a) irreparable harm and (b) either (1) likelihood of success on the merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting the preliminary relief.
See Paddington Corp v. Attiki Importers, 996 F.2d 577 (2d Cir 1993); Plaza Health Laboratories v. Perales, 878 F.2d 577, 580 (2d Cir 1989); Jackson Dairy v. HP Hood & Sons, 596 F.2d 70, 72 (2d Cir 1979).
IRC has shown risk of irreparable injury to itself, see Southern Mutual Help Ass'n v. Califano, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 307, 574 F.2d 518 (DC Cir 1977), but not to the child beneficiaries, which must be shown for relief to be granted. As indicated in Equal Opportunity Commission v. Weinberger, 524 F.2d 393, 405 (2d Cir 1975) (Friendly, J., concurring):
The primary interest of Congress lay in the persons to be benefitted by the program, not in those who were to administer them.