Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion of Defendants-Appellants for Leave to File Brief
Public Court Documents
April 12, 1977

11 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Bolden v. Mobile Hardbacks and Appendices. Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion of Defendants-Appellants for Leave to File Brief, 1977. 0cf5fba1-cdcd-ef11-8ee9-6045bddb7cb0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/4e0ed089-cb6a-41a3-a373-a3e579601d51/supplemental-memorandum-in-support-of-motion-of-defendants-appellants-for-leave-to-file-brief. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Copied!
HE * ® IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE PIFTH CIRCUIT No. 76-4210 WILLEY I. BOLDEN, ET AL., * Plaintiffs-Appellees, % Vs. | vi CITY OF MOBILE, ET AL., * Defendants-Appellants. * ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAM SUPPLEMENTAL ‘MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF EXCEEDING FIFTY (50) PAGES On April 6, 1977, counsel for Defendants-Appellants was noti- fied by the printer that Defendant oAppel lante" brief would exceed both the typewritten manuscript and the page limitations of Rule 28(9), F.R.A.P. Counsel thereupon hurriedly filed a motion for leave to file a brief exceeding those limitations. This is a case of enormous public importance. The District City Commission form of government under which Mobile has operated for sixty-six (66) years. The District Court's Orders would command Mobile to switch to a mayor-council form of government which has twice been proposed in referenda and twice rejected by City voters. N tebe The District Court itself acknowledged the far-reaching con- sequences of its decision, stating: "...The Court recognizes that the order- ing of the change of the city form of govern- ment has raised serious constitutional issues. Reasonable persons can reasonably differ...." 423 F.Supp. at 404. Indeed, on April 7, 1977, the District Court granted a stay of its Orders and Judgment (stay of April 7, 1977, attached) pend- ing the appeal which this Court has ordered (on February 14, 1977) be expedited. This most recent action of the District Court lends additional emphasis to the significance of the case, and of the ngorbance of full expos ieion of the issues raised by this case. Pefendints-Apelldnte urge that the complex and important issues involved here necessitate consideration of the full analysis which is presented in thaly Brief, and urge the Court to grant their motion for leave to file that Brief in excess of the page limitations of Rule 28(q), F.R.A.P. The unavoidable circumstances through which the page limitation has been exooeded are set forth in Defendants-Appellants' motion, filed on April 6, 1977. Respectfully submitted, OF COUNSEL: Hand, Arendall, Bedsole, Greaves & Johnston P.O. Box 123: Mobile, Alabama 36601 Legal Department of the City of Mobile Mobile, Alabama 36602 iIRhyne & Rhyne 1400 Hill Building i Bul: Washington, 20006 Dated: 1977 Bpril 12, By: 1 i C.B, Arendall, Jr. William C. Tidwell, 111 Travis M. Bedsole, Jr. P.O. Box 123 Mobile, ‘Alabama 36601 Fred G. Collins, City Attorney City Hall lobile, Alabama 36602 Charles S. Rhyne William S. Rhyne Donald A. Carr Martin W. Matzen 400 Hill Building Washington, D.C. 20006 '§ . 7) L/ 0 y Et a ( YL TIER AY hori NTT YY A) Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants b | | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that I have on this 12th day of April, 1977, served a copy of the foregoing SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF EXCEEDING FIFTY (50) PAGES, on counsel for all parties to this pro- ceeding, by mailing the same by United States mail, properly addressed, and first class postage prepaid. Vd / 7 4 } EW ¢ j hy J ry ; 74 5 Fy 0 0. MIA, # { Xf X / ¥ 4” ¥ Nery » \ [ +, Charles S. Rhyne & Attorney for Defendants-Appellants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION . WILEY I. BOLDEN, REV. BR. 1. HOPE, CHARLES JOHNSON, JANET 0. LeFLORE, JOHN L. LeFLORE, CHARLES MAXWELL, OSSIE B. PURIFOY, RAYMOND SCOTT, SHERMAN SMITH, OLLIE LEE TAYLOR, RODNEY O. TURNER, REV. ED WILLIAMS, SYLVESTER WILLIAMS and MRS. F. C. WILSON, Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION Y. No. 75-297-P CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA: GARY A. GREENOUGH, ROBERT B. DOYLE, JR., and LAMBERT C. MIMS, individually and in their official capacities as Mobile City Commissioners, N o ’ S o SN N S N A N S N S S s N e AN S s N N N N N N N N N N S Defendants. ORDER GRANTING STAY The defendants City of Mobile, et al. (City of Mobile), filed a motion for a stay of this court's order requiring elec- tion of City officials under the mayor-council form of govern- ment in August, 1977. The court, by order and opinion dated October 21, 1976, and March 9, 1977, granted the relief sought by the plaintiff class, holding that the present three member commission form of city government, as practiced in Mobile, unconstitutionally and invidiously discriminated against black Mobile residents. The only practical relief possible was granted - an affirmative injunction prohibiting further elections under the commission form of government. Elections, at the regular election time, on the third Tuesday in August, 1977, were ordered pursuant to a mayor-council plan adopted by the court in its March 9, 1977, order. Barring further orders of this or an appellate court, election of a mayor and .nine council members would proceed on that date. The City of Mobile has appealed the court's order. Expedited consideration by the Fifth Circuit has resulted in probable June, 1977, oral arguments. Deliberation time by the Fifth Circuit is an unknown factor, but plaintiffs assert expedited consideration would require a maximum of several months (Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief, filed April 1, 1977. at 3). The City of Mobile petitions this court to issue a stay of its order requiring a mayor-council election in August, 1977. Primarily, they cite confusion that would be caused by proceeding with a mayor-council election, if this court's mayor-council plan was reversed on appeal. Such a reversal would necessitate a subsequent election under the commission form. The city suggests three alternatives for the court's consideration: 1. unlimited stay of elections with the present commissioners present eg office being extended by the court, 2. commission elections in August, 1977, 3. mayor-council elections a August, 1877. The plaintiff class members claim as much confusion would be caused by granting a stay and allowing the August, 1977, election to be held under the commission form, with the probability of a later election being held in which a mayor and council members were elected. Plaintiffs suggest two options in addition to the three mentioned by the city: 4. limited stay to allow application of a stay to the Court of Appeals, and 5. delay of elections for a specified period of time. Rule 62(c), FRCP, grants the trial court discretion when determining if a stay should be granted: "When an appeal is taken from an interlocutory or final judgment granting, dissolving, or denying an injunction, the court in its discretion may suspend, modify, Yestore, or grant an injunction during the pendency of the appeal upon such terms . ., . as it con- siders proper ..... . ." Rule 62(c), FRCP. The Fifth Circuit in Belcher v, Birmingham Trust National Bank, 395 F.2d 685 (5th Cir. 1968) adopted Virginia Petroleum Job Ass'n. v. Federal Power Commission, 104 U. S, App. D.C. 106, 259 F.2d 921. 825 (1958), which outlined four judicial factors to be considered in determining whether to grant "the extraordinary remedy of stay pending appeal." Belcher, supra, 395 F.24 at 635. The four Belcher factors provide merely considerations to be balanced when determining the propriety of granting a stay. Long v. Robinson, 432 F.2d 977, 981 (4th Cir. 1970), cited with approval in Beverly v. United States, 468 ¥.24 732, 741 n.13 (5th Cir. 1972). Tor the court to follow an iron-clad rule requiring a significant showing by the movant of all four factors would be applying form ger substance. One of the four factors is concerned with whether a refusal to grant the stay would result in irreparable injury to the applicant. The city claims the actual election and institution of the mayor-council form of government would create great confusion and disruption if the appellate court reverses. This court agrees. If an August, 1977, mayor-council election were conducted and these officials took office, governmental administration would change significantly. New department heads and subordinates may or may not result under the mayor -council government, but for the mayor @and council to institute broad personnel changes, with the possibility of subsequent election under the commission form, would create 3 substantial confusion and resulting harm in the operation of the city government, not because some employees and elected officials may be replaced but because of attendant inefficiency caused by a possible two changes in the form of government. See Reeves v. Eaves, 415 F. Supp. 1141 (N.D. Ga. 1976), where substantial court ordered changes in Atlanta's police force could temporarily affect the quality of the police service, with resultant Yharm that cannot be undone" if the court order was reversed on appeal. An in- junction was issued to walatals the status quo. Reeves, supra, 415 P,: Supp. at 1145, Significantly, the probability of some confusion inherent in the adoption of the mayor-council plan was recog- nized by plaintiffs as reflected in their proposed final in- junction submitted to the court. Pointing to the potential conflict between the court's mayor -council plan (issued March 9, 1977) and local acts of Alabama denting with the present commission form of government, the plaintiffs re- quested the court to retain jurisdiction for two years for this court to resolve those conflicts. The court, in its March 9. 1977, order, at 3, retained jurisdiction for two years so this court could venolve any. conflicts. There would be less confusion if this order is stayed. In the event of a reversal, a second election would not be required and the form of government would not have been changed from commission to mayor -council and back to commission forms of government. In the event of an affirmance, a second election will be required but the city will be re- quired to change only to a mayor -council plan from a commis- sion form of government. A second factor this court should consider is whether a stay of the injunction would result in substantial oti harm to the non-movants, black citizens of Mobile. Assumin this court's order is upheld, the only harm to be encountered by plaintiffs is the additional time black Mobilians must reside under existing government, albeit unconstitutional. Affirmance by the appellate courtswould result in the order of mayor-council elections within a reasonably short time thereafter as provided by this stay order. No substantial harm would befall plaintiffs. A third and most important consideration is to determine whether granting a stay is in the public interest. The case is unlike Belcher v. BINB, supra, where only private Interests are involved, To the contrary, the public interest is intimately tvnived, The City of Mobile operates with public funds and events adversely affecting the city adversely affect its citizens. Expected administrative changes under the mayor- council form of government will, predictably, result in ephemeral confusion. Uncertainty, concomitant with any appeal, of the outcome of this litigation may make qualified persons shy away. from running for a position on the mayor-council government. This factor is intertwined with resulting confu- sion in a major change in the form of city government. To subject the citizens of Mobile to these possibilities would be against the interests of all persons, including plaintiffs and defendants. The last factor requires movants to demonstrate a significant likelihood of prevailing on appeal. 1t is not likely many trial courts would predict reversal of their own decision by the appellate court. It has been pointed out that when the basis of the trial court's decision deals with im- portant legal issues involving novel approaches and uncharted legal doctrine, the requirement of a significant ground for appellate success is relaxed. 7 Moore's Federal Practice Para. 62.05 at 62-25 (1976). The court is firm in its belief that its order granting affirmative relief to the plaintiffs through the implementation of the mayor-council plan follows the letter and spirit of dedtutonnl constitutional law and will be affirmed by the appellate courts. The evidence and con- trolling case law makes it clear to this court that the con- clusions of law and remedy are not only legally correct, but follow the letter and spirit of the precepts set forth in the Constitution. The legal basis upon which the Mobile City Commission was found to invidiously discriminate by race is solid. To find an unconstitutional structure of government as practiced without providing a remedy would be to deny justice. The strong mayor-council plan is the best remedy. In the October 21, 1976, Bolden order, Bolden v. City of Mobile, Alabama, 423 F. Supp. 384 (5.D. Ala. 1976), the court recognized the "serious constitutional issues' raised by the decree and % that '"[r]easonable persons can reasonably differ" as to the constitutionality of the remedy. Bolden at 404. The court then ex mero motu pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §1292(b) granted the parties the right to an interlocutory appeal of the October 21, 1976, order. Plaintiffs claim that to maintain the status quo and go forward with the August, 1977, commission elections would tend to favor incumbents because few other persons would expend substantial sums on citywide commissioners' races, with the possibility of being ordered out of office upon a find- ing that the mayor-council plan is valid. However, a consid- eration of all factors convinces the court that preparations for elections, including qualifying for office under the city commission form of government, should go forward to be held as regularly scheduled in August, 1977, with the persons 0 4 so elected subject to termination of office in the event this court's order is affirmed. This stay is subject to review and change should the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirm this court within a time prior to the Sundet 1977, elections for a meaningful campaign to be held under this court's prior order. In any event, if there is a final affirmance by an appellate court, elections shall be ordered to occur within a reasonable time thereafter in accordance with this court's prior orders. It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this court's prior orders are stayed subject to the conditions set out and subject to further orders of this court, save and except the injunction entered March 9, 1977, beginning with the last paragraph on page "3" and continuing through page "6 1 to wit, beginning "The defendants City of Mobile . . . = % % . . . the election of the city council and mayor." The dead- line for the Board of Registrars to accomplish their task is extended from May 1, 1977, to June l, 1977. flr Done, this the Tas day of April, 1977. fF 114 ar t. Fl — en Al UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1. 8. DISTRICT COURT SOU. DIST. AlA. FILED AND ENTERED THIS THE 778 "DAY OF APRIL, 1977 MINUTE ENTRY NO. ifordale WILLIAM. O'CONNOR CLERK BY ZT mrad, /Deputy Clerk