Draft Brief in Support of Motion to Join Parties

    * #
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

“ “ “ “  —  _ _ _ _ _ _ _  )
RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )

Plaintiffs, )
)

v. )
)

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, )
)

Defendants, )
)

and )
)

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, )
Defendants- )
Intervenors, )

)
and )

)
ALLEN PARK, et al., )

Defendants- )
Intervenors, )

)
and )

)
KERRY GREEN, et al., )

Defendants- )
Intervenors, )

)
and )

)
WAYNE COUNTY INTERMEDIATE )
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., )

Added Defendants. )
)

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO JOIN PARTIES

1. ’’Delay is no longer tolerable’’ in fashioning and

implementing an effective plan for the desegregation of the 

Detroit Public Schools. Bradley v „ Mllllken, F .2d ,
(Nos. 72-1809 - 72-1814, June 12, 1973, en banc) Slip Op. at 

71.
2. ”In the instant case, the only feasible desegregation 

plan involves the crossing of the boundary lines between the 
Detroit School District and adjacent or nearby school districts 
for the limited purpose of providing an eftective desegregation

plan.” Ibid, at 63.



•  •

3. "[T]he District Court in the present case is not 
confined to the boundary lines of Detroit in fashioning equitable 

relief." Ibid. at 65.
4. "[S]chool districts which are to be affected by 

the decree of the District Court are ’necessary parties’ under 

Rule 19.” Ibid, at 68.

5. "The panel appointed by the District Court [and 
charged with the duty of preparing interim and final plans 
of desegregation] is authorized to proceed with its studies 

and planning under the direction of the District Court."

Ibid. at 69.
6. The assistance, including but not limited to the 

provision of data and reasonable staff assistance as requested 

by the panel, of all local and intermediate school districts 
is necessary to permit full planning by the panel for a 

desegregation plan to proceed. Order for Development of
Plan of Desegregation, June 14, 1972, Part I.C., aff’d in 

pertinent part, Ibid. at 69.
7. Decisions on the issue as to whether certain 

parties are necessary in order to achieve complete relief are

by nature made on a hypothetical basis. For a Court to await until 
all the evidence is adduced to determine the need for joinder 

of additional parties would create a risk of unjustifiable 
delay in the resolution of the controversy and a waste of the 
efforts of all involved. Bradley v. Sch. Bd, of the City of 

Richmond, 51 F.R.D. 139 (E.D.Va. 1970).
8. Based on the evidence already in the record and 

the proposals and plans considered by the parties, the Court- 
appointed panel, and the Court, it is possible that all 
school districts in the tri-county area may be affected by
an effective desegregation plan--by inclusion in the desegregation 
area for pupil assignment, by school construction controls or 

otherwise.
9. Certain parties are no longer in office or have 

been replaced.
10. Rules 19 and 21, F.R.Civ.P.

2



t #
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that all local 

and intermediate school districts, their Boards of Education, 

Members of their Boards of Education, and their Superintendents 

in the tri-county area be joined as parties defendant.

Respectfully submitted,

LOUIS R. LUCAS 
WILLIAM E. CALDWELL

Ratner, Sugermon & Lucas 
525 Commerce Title Bldg. 
Memphis, Tennessee

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

PAUL R. DIMOND 
906 Rose Avenue 
Ann Arbor, Michigan

J. HAROLD FLANNERY
ROBERT PRESSMAN

Center for Law & Education 
6l Kirkland St.
Cambridge, Mass. 02138

E. WINTHER McCROOM 
3^25 Woodburn Avenue 
Cincinnati

JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York

3