Emergency Motion for Extension of Time

    J <1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

NOS. 72-1064 
72-1065 
72-1066

RONALD BRADLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
Cross-Appellants,

V S .

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, 
Cross-Appellants,

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL 231, 
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

Defendant-Intervenor- 
Appellee,

and
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al.,

Defendants-Intervenor.

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Eastern District of Michigan 

Southern Division

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE APPEALS, 
MOTION TO DESIGNATE PARTIES 
AS APPELLANT. AND APPELLEE, 

AND MOTION TO FIX TIME FOR THE 
FILING OF APPENDIX AND BRIEFS



f tf t

V



«

Defendants-Appellee and Cross-Appellant the' Board of 
Education of the City of Detroit, et al., a school district of 
the first class, (hereinafter referred to as the "Detroit Board") 
moves this court to consolidate the above numbered appeals, to 
designate the parties appropriately as appellants and appellees, 
and to determine the time and order of filing briefs as provided 
in the proposed Order attached hereto. As grounds for this motion 
the Detroit Board says as follows:

1. All of the above numbered appeals arise from the 
"Ruling on Issue of Segregation" issued by the District Court of 
the Eastern District of Michigan on September 27, 1971 and the 
Order of that court issued on November 5, 1971, both of which 
are attached hereto as Appendices A and B.

2. In the aforementioned ruling on the issue of deseg­
regation Judge Roth found that there was de jure segregation with 
regard to students in the Detroit Schools, but that there was not 
de jure segregation with regard to faculty.

3. Defendants Board of Education of the City of Detroit, 
and William E. Milliken, et al., timely filed Notices of Appeal 
appealing the Trial Court's ruling on the issue of student segre­
gation and plaintiff Ronald Bradley, et al., timely filed a Notice 
of Appeal appealing the Trial Court's ruling on the issue of 
faculty segregation.

-2



t

4. The Order of the District Court issued on 
November 5, 1971 ordered Defendants William Milliken, et al.
and Board of Education of the City of Detroit to severally prepare 
plans for the desegregation of the Detroit system. Said order 
made no mention of the Trial Court's ruling on the issue of 
faculty segregation.

5. On the issue of faculty segregation Plaintiffs' 
attack was directed almost solely at the actions and conduct of 
the Detroit Board and the Defendant-Intervenor Detroit Federation 
of Teachers, unlike Plaintiff's attack on the issue of student 
segregation which involved numerous state defendants and other non­
defendant entities both public and private. There is therefore 
little reason to designate the State Defendants as appellees when 
the issue on which plaintiff takes appeal does not directly affect 

them.
6. The vast majority of the trial time, transcript, 

briefs and arguments of the parties has been directed towards the 
issue of student segregation. If Defendants Detroit Board and the 
State Defendants are not designated as appellants, the Court will 
be hearing the vast majority of the substance of this appeal for 
the first time in the briefs of the appellees.

7. At this writing this court has before it Motions filed 
by Plaintiffs Ronald Bradley, et al. to Dismiss, appeals and for

- 3~



Leave to Proceed on the Original Papers. Defendants Detroit 
Board has filed objections to both motions of Plaintiffs. At 
this writing Defendant Detroit Board has received a copy of 
objections to Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss filed by the State 
Defendants as well as State Defendants' objection to Plaintiffs' 
Motion to Proceed on Original Papers.

8. Should the Court decide either of Plaintiffs' 
motions in favor of Plaintiffs' Defendant's preparation of an 
Appendix would be futile and constitute a substantial and needless 
expenditure of public monies. Likewise, should the Court decide 
Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss in Plaintiffs' favor, substantial 
devotion of counsel's time to the preparation of briefs at this 
point would likewise constitute a needless expenditure of public 
monies.

9. Counsel for the Board of Education proposes to 
print the entire transcript of the Trial in this case in the 
Appendix, due to the substantial reference to the trial trans­
cript which has taken place in post-trial briefs, and a reason­
able expectation that appellate briefs will also rely heavily on 
the trial transcript. See Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed 
on the Original Papers and Defendant's Objections thereto.

10. It is a reasonable expectation shared by Plaintiffs' 
counsel, that printing an Appendix of this length without incurring 
exorbitant cost will consume ninety (90) days as the attached 
Affidavit marked "Appendix C" indicates. Ten additional days will 
be required to provide for proper reference in Appellant's Briefs 
to the Appendix.

4-



%

WHEREFORE Defendant the Board of Education of the City
of Detroit, with a view to providing for the orderly prosecution 
of this Appeal without occassioning undue expense, respectfully 
prays that the Consolidation of Appeals, Designation of Parties 
on Appeal, and Fixing of Time for the Filing of Appendix and 
Briefs, set forth in the proposed order attached hereto be 
entered by the court.

Respectfully submitted
RILEY AND ROUMELL

Attorneys for the Board of 
Education of the City of 
Detroit
720 Ford Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226 
962-8255

Dated: February 5, 1972

-5



«

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing 
motion to consolidate appeals, motion to designate parties as 
appellant and appellee, and motion to fix time for the filing 
of appendix and briefs was served upon the following named 
addressees this 5th day of February, 1972 by United States 
mail, postage prepaid, addressed to them at their respective

business addresses.

Messrs. Louis R. Lucas and 
William E. Caldwell

Mr. Eugene Krasicky
Mr. Theodore Sachs

Mr. Nathaniel R. Jones Mr. Alexander B. Ritchie
Messrs. J. Harold Flannery 

Paul R. Dimond and 
Robert Pressman •

Mr. Bruce A. Miller and 
Mrs. Lucile Watts

Mr. E. Winther McCroom
Messrs. Jack Greenberg and 

Norman J. Chachkin

George T, Roumell, Jr

Dated: February 5, 1972



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

NOS. 72-1064 
72-1065 
72-1066

RONALD BRADLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
Cross-Appellants,

VS .

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, 
Cross-Appellants,

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL 231, 
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

Defendant-Intervenor- 
Appellee,

and
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al.,

Defendants-Intervenor.

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Eastern District of Michigan 

Southern Division

ORDER



41

STATE OF MICHIGAN )
) S S .

COUNTY OF WAYNE )

ORDER

BEFORE

Circuit Judges

Motion having been brought by the Defendant Board of 
Education of the City of Detroit, responses thereto having been 
received, and the Court being fully advised in the premises,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Appeals numbers 72-1064, 72-1065, and 72-1066 
shall be consolidated and heard as one appeal.

2. Plaintiffs Ronald Bradley, et al. shall be desig­
nated as appellees and cross-appellants. Defendant William E. 
Milliken, et al. shall be designated as appellant and cross­
appellee. Defendants the Board of Education of the City of Detroit et 
al. shall be designated as appelland and cross-appellee. Defendant- 
Intervenor, the Detroit Federation of Teachers shall be designated

- 2-



as cross-appellee.

3. Time for the filing of briefs shall be measured 
from the disposition by the Court of plaintiff Ronald Bradley's 
Motions to Dismiss the Appeals for Lack of Jurisdiction and to
Proceed on the Original Papers, whichever such motion is disposed 
of last. .

4. Should the court deny both of trie aforesaid motions 
of Ronald Bradley and order the appeal to proceed with a full 
appendix pursuant to rule 30, F.R.AP., then Defendants William
E. Milliken et al and Board of Education of the City of Detroit 
shall file the Appendix with the court within ninety (90) days 
after whichever such denial by the Court is last. Within ten (10) 
days after the filing of their Appendix Appellants shall file their 
briefs. Plaintiffs Ronald Bradley, et al. shall then have thirty 
(30) days after the filing of said briefs to file their briefs 
as appellee and cross-appellant. Defendants William E. Milliken, 
et al and the Board of Education of the City of Detroit shall 
then have fourteen (14) days after the filing of Plaintiffs'
Ronald Bradley, et al. brief to file reply briefs, and the afore­
said Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors the Detroit Federation 
of ieachers shall have thirty (30) days from the filing of 
Plaintiff Ronald Bradley's brief to file briefs as cross-appellees.

5. Should the court deny plaintiff Ronald Bradley, et al.’s 
Motion to Dismiss, but grant their Motion for Leave to Proceed on 
the Original Papers, then Defendants the Board of Education of the

- 3-



i «
City of Detroit, and William E. Milliken, et al. shall have 
forty (40) days after the disposition of v/hichever such motion is 
disposed of last to file briefs. Time limits and order of briefs 
filed thereafter shall be as stated in paragraph 4 above.

5. The order of presentations on oral argument shall 
be: first, presentations by the Defendants Board of Education of
the City of Detroit and William E. Milliken, et al; second, reply 
by Plaintiff Ronald Bradley, et al; third, reply by Defendant-- 
Intervenor Detroit Federation of Teachers, and third, rebuttal by 
Defendants, William E. Milliken, et al. and Board of Education of 
the City of Detroit, should they reserve time for said rebuttal.

Entered by Order of the Court

Clerk

Dated: February 5, 1972

4