Answer to Amended Complaint

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)
)
)
)) Civil Action No. 35257
)
)
)
)

ANSWER OF- PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY SCHOOL 
DISTRICT, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, 
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION 
AND THE SUPERINTENDENT TO AMENDED

COMPLAINT. ______

I
FIRST DEFENSE 

PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

1. These Defendants for lack of information neither 

admit nor deny the allegations contained in paragraph one.
2. Answering paragraph two these Defendants deny any 

acts, conduct or activities in violation of Federal or State Law

that invokes the jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Answering paragraph three these Defendants for lack

of information neither admit nor deny the allegations contained m
’V

paragraph three.

II
DEFENDANTS

4. Answering paragraphs four, five, six, seven, eight 

and nine these Defendants for lack of information neither admit

RONALD BRADLEY, Et Al,
Plaintiffs,

-vs-
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, Et Al,

Defendants.



nor deny the allegations as to necessity and leaves Plaintiffs 
to their proofs.

Ill
ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS 

TO CONFORM TO THE EVIDENCE
10. Answering paragraph ten these Defendants neither 

admit nor deny the allegations contained therein for lack of 
information, and further state that if said additional allegations 
are made to confirm to evidence presented in this court, these 
Defendants were not a party to said proceedings and have not
been afforded an opportunity of participation in trial, or cross-
examination as to evidence produced at trial in violation of
Plaintiff's rights; further, these Defendants aver that they have
never committed or participated in any acts of de jure segregation
as alleged, and if said de jure segregation has occurred, it is
the result of other factors and conditions that are not the basis

*

of any suit against these Defendants.
11. Answering paragraph eleven these Defendants deny 

the allegations contained therein.
12. Answering paragraph twelve these Defendants deny 

the allegations contained therein.
13. Answering paragraph thirteen these Defendants deny 

the allegations contained therein.
14. Answering paragraph fourteen these Defendants deny 

the allegations contained therein.
15. Answering paragraph fifteen these Defendants for

»>

want of information neither admit nor deny the allegations and 
leave Plaintiffs to their proofs.

16. Answering paragraph sixteen these Defendants deny 
same as being untrue.

- 2 -



17. Answering paragraph seventeen these Defendants
for lack of information neither admit nor deny said allegations, 
and further state that said additional allegations to conform to 
evidence were made prior to the joinder of these Defendants as 
parties and they have not been afforded an opportunity to defend, 
or to examine, as to any findings made as heretofore pleaded in 
paragraph ten of this Answer.

SECOND DEFENSE

That Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon 
which relief can be granted in that they have failed to allege 
that any acts of de jure segregration were committed by or are 
attributable to these Defendants.

THIRD DEFENSE

That to grant the relief prayed for in the Complaint 
and Amended Complaint as to these Defendants would:

A. Be a deprivation of due process of law as 
guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States because 
these Defendants have not been a party to the 
extensive proceedings that have previously 
taken place, and have not been guilty of any 
of the enumerated acts alleged in Plaintiff's 
Complaint; -

\B. Result in unreasonable hardship because of
the time and distance factors involved so as to 
either affect the health of the child, or - 
significantly impinge on the educational process;

C. Create an unreasonable burden on the pupil 
and these Defendants.

FOURTH DEFENSE

That the relief sought by Plaintiff would require a

- 3 -



restructuring of local government in violation of the right of
electoral choice.

FIFTH DEFENSE

That this Court can grant relief to Plaintiffs 
in the absence of these Defendants.

SIXTH DEFENSE

That this Court is without authority to enter a
judgment as to these Defendants as to a desegregation plan 
as there is no showing of a plan or purpose.for promoting 
segregation by these Defendants and that if, or the action or 
intent of, segregation exists, it is not the result of present 
or past desegregation by these Defendants.

WHEREFORE, these Defendants pray that said Complaint 
be dismissed with costs and attorney fees awarded.

DATED: October 26, 1973 SEMPLINER, THOMAS AND GUTH 
Attorneys for Plymouth Community 
School District, The Board of 
Education, Members of the Board 
of Education and Superintendent

UY: WALTER J. rGUTH, JR. 
711 West Ann Arbor Trail 
Plymouth, Michigan 48170
455-4560
453-6220

4-