Order to Withdraw Motion to Consolidate; Order to Dissolve Stay

Public Court Documents
August 23, 1999

Cite this item
Order to Withdraw Motion to Consolidate; Order to Dissolve Stay preview

6 pages

Includes fax cover pages.

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Memorandum in Support of Motion to File Second Amended Complaint, 1975. 42099444-54e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/2ca7ddbf-6e6b-45b3-8911-4b43942c1079/memorandum-in-support-of-motion-to-file-second-amended-complaint. Accessed July 31, 2025.

    Copied!

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al. , X
Plaintiffs,

•
X
•
• CIVIL ACTION

-vs- X
•
• NO. 35257

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., X
Defendants. X

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

In support of its Motion to file a Second Amended 

Complaint in this cause, plaintiffs and the members of their 
class would state to the Court the following:

1. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro­
cedure provides, inter alia, that leave to amend "shall be 

freely given when justice so requires." Rule 15 F.R.C.P.

2. Since the Decision of the United States 
Supreme Court in this cause, Milliken v. Bradley, 414 U.S.

1038 (1974), specifying for the first time the appropriate 
legal standard for inter-district relief in school desegre­
gation cases, an Amended Complaint is necessary to fully 
spell out plaintiffs’ claims against defendants. In this man­

ner, the evidence of record which would support such relief 
can be evaluated and additional evidence taken after appropri­
ate discovery. Plaintiffs respectfully suggest that any 
hearings on the issue of metro violation and remedy be put 

aside until the mandate of the Supreme Court is put into effect.

3. In light of these policies favoring a liberal 
construction of Rule 15, plaintiffs respectfully request



leave of Court to file this proposed Second Amended Com­
plaint in this cause.

Respectfully submitted.

LOUIS R. LUCAS
RATNER, SUGARMON, LUCAS & SALKY 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

JOHN A. DZIAMBA 
746 Main Street 
P.O. Box D
Willimantic, Connecticut 06226

ELLIOTT S. HALL
2755 Guardian Building 
500 Griswald Avenue 
Detroit, Michigan

NATHANIEL JONES 
General Counsel 
N.A.A.C.P.
1790 Broadway
New York, New York 10019

J. HAROLD FLANNERY 
PAUL DIMOND 
WILLIAM E. CALDWELL

Lawyers' Committee For Civil
Rights Under Law
733 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 520
Washington, D.C. 20005

Counsel for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing 

Memorandum In Support Of Motion To File Second Amended Com­
plaint has been served on all counsel of record by depositing 
same to them at theirs office by United States mail, postage 
prepaid, this ^  '^^ay^pf March, 1975.

- 2-

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top