Jones v. Caddo Parish School Board Suggestion of Reassignment

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

NO. 74-1672

BERYL N. JONES, et al.,

Plain tiffs,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Intervener,
vs.

CADDO PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ct al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

JERRY ADAMS, et al.,

Applicants for Intervention 
Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Western District cf Louisiana

SUGGESTION OF REASSIGEFrENT

Appellants, JERRY ADAMS, et al., by their undersigned 

counsel, respectfully suggest the appropriateness of reassigning 

to another pane], of this matter.

Wc respectfully submit that, whether or not the facts and 

circumstances set forth below constitute statutory ground for 

recusal under 28 U.S.C. §144, they may represent serious dif­

ficulties in achieving impartial adjudication of this matter,

and for that reason, the interests of justice would be served



if this matter were reassigned to another panel of this Court. 

(The matter is presently assigned to lion. Griffin B. Bell, 

lion. Robert A. Ainsworth, and Hon. John C. Godbold) .

1. This appeal involves a school desegregation case in 

which the District Court approved a purported desegregation 

plan without hearing, factual findings, or legal conclusions, 

upon the basis that the parties had consented to the settlement. 

The issues are very similar to those which were involved in 

Calhoun v. Cook, 487 F.2d 680 (5th Cir. 1973). In both cases, 

the settlement was precipitated by the entry of new counsel into 

the litigation, with resultant controversy over crass represen­

tation issues. The senior member of the pane] to which this 

case is assigned, lion. Griffin B. Bell, is alleged to have par­

ticipated in seeking an extrajudicial settlement of the Calhoun 

litigation, in a recusal motion filed in A m o u r v. Nix, No.

16,708, N.D. Ga..

2. The panel to which this matter is assigned may have 

prejudged the issues. The same panel decided an earlier appeal 

by a group of Caddo Parish parents denied leave to intervene

in the proceedings before the District Court. Jones v. Caddo

Parish School Dd., 487 F.2d 1275 (5th Cir. 1973). The judgment

of the District Court was affirmed. During the course of its

per curiam opinion, the panel made the following statements:

On dune 1, 1973, the Citizens Committee's
report, unanimously concurred in by all 
members, was filed with the District Court.



Fifteen days were given to the parties to 
file any responses to the recommended plan.
All of the original parties to the liti- 
gation, plaintiffs, and Caddo Parish School 
Board, accepted the plan. Intervener^ ^
United States of America stated in writing 
that it "interjects no objection to ordering 
implementation of this plan, as is more _ 
fully set out in its response filed herein.

Appellants' motion to intervene herein was 
denied and a consent decree approving the 
plan recommended by the biracial Citizens 
Committee was entered by Judge Scott on 
m l v  2 1973 and has been implemented m  the^
present school, year. Eight years of litigation 
between the original parties has finally come 
to an end.

(Id., at 1276). Although this opinion was issued after 

lalhoun v. Coot, supra, in which mother panel of this Court 

hold termination of desegregation litigation hy consent decree 

without hearing or findings improper, the 1973 opinion of tins 

panel indicates that the members of the panel view the litigation 

as closed, and the proceedings as meeting the requirements of 

the law. Although the precise issues raised in the Brief for 

Appellants Adams, et al., were obviously not presented to the 

panel in the earlier appeal, the language quoted above indreates 

that the panel studied the entire record and concluded, without 

benefit of briefs or argument, adversely to the present appellants 

on the issues they seek to raise.

For these reasons, appellants respectfully suggest that 

transfer of the present appeal to another panel would be appro

pri ate.
- 3 -



*

Respectfully submitted,

HILRY HUCKABY, 'III 
501 Petroleum Tower 
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101 

JACK GREENBERG 
JAMES M. NABRIT, III 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
MARGRETT FORD 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Appellants 
JERRY ADAMS, et al.

CERT1FICATE OF SERV ICE

I hereby certify that on this 15th day of April, 1974, I 

served a copy of the foregoing Suggestion of Reassignment upon 

counsel for the appellees herein, by depositing same in the 

United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as

follows:

Murphy Bell, Esq.
617 North Boulevard 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Eon. Donsild E. Walter, 
United States Attorney 
Federal Bui Idling 
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101

John R. Pleasant, Esq.
1004 Mid South Towers 
P. O. Drawer 1092 
Shreveport, Louisiana 71163

Brian Landsberg, Esq.
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 2053 0

_ 4 _