Bibb County Board of Education v. United States Jurisdictional Statement

    I n  the

txptmv (Erntt ni %  llnxtvb
October Term, 1967 

No. 671

The Bibb County Board of E ducation, E llington P. J ones, 
Henry Bolding, Britt Cox, C. E. H ornsby, J r., and F rancis 
B. P ratt,

Appellants,

Anthony T. Lee and H enry A. Lee, by Detroit Lee and Hattie 
M. Lee, their parents and next friends; P almer Sullins, J r ., 
Alan D. Sullins and Marsha Marie Sullins, by Palmer 
Sullins and Della D. Sullins, their parents and next friends; 
Gerald Warren Billes and H eloise E laine B illes, by I. V. 
Billes, their father and next friend; W illie M. J ackson, J r., 
by Mabel H. Jackson, his mother and next friend; W illie B. 
W yatt, J r., and Brenda J. W yatt, by Willie B. Wyatt and 
Thelma A. Wyatt, their parents and next friends; Nelson N. 
Boggan, J r., by Nelson Boggan, Sr., and Mamie Boggan, his 
parents and next friends; Willie C. J ohnson, J r., Brenda 
F aye J ohnson and Dwight W. J ohnson, by Willie C. Johnson 
and Ruth Johnson, their parents and next friends, and W il­
liam H. Moore and E dwina M. Moore, by L. James Moore 
and Edna M. Moore, their parents and next friends,

—and—
United States of A merica,

Appellees.
on appeal from the united states district court for

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MOTION TO AFFIRM

F red D. Gray
352 Dexter Avenue 
Montgomery, Alabama 36104

J ack Greenberg 
J ames M. Nabrit, III 
Charles LI. J ones, J r.
Charles Stephen Ralston 
Melvyn Zarr

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Appellees 
Anthony T. Lee, et al.



I n  t h e

( ta r t  of tin Imtefc &tatra
October Term, 1967 

No. 671

The Bibb County Board op E ducation, E llington P. J ones, 
Henry Bolding, Britt Cox, C. E. H ornsby, J r., and F rancis 
B. P ratt,

Appellants,

Anthony T. Lee and Henry A. Lee, by Detroit Lee and Hattie 
M. Lee, their parents and next friends; P almer Sullins, J r., 
Alan D. Sullins and Marsi-ia Marie Sullins, by Palmer 
Sullins and Della D. Sullins, their parents and next friends; 
Gerald Warren Billes and Heloise E laine Billes, by I. Y. 
Billes, their father and next friend; W illie M. J ackson, J r., 
by Mabel H. Jackson, his mother and next friend; W illie B. 
Wyatt, J r., and Brenda J. W yatt, by W7illie B. Wyatt and 
Thelma A. Wyatt, their parents and next friends; Nelson N. 
Boggan, J r., by Nelson Boggan, Sr., and Mamie Boggan, his 
parents and next friends; W illie C. J ohnson, J r., Brenda 
F aye J ohnson and Dwight W. J ohnson, by Willie C. Johnson 
and Ruth Johnson, their parents and next friends, and W il­
liam II. Moore and E dwina M. Moore, by L. James Moore 
and Edna M. Moore, their parents and next friends,

—and—
United States of America,

Appellees.

ON APPEAL PROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MOTION TO AFFIRM

Appellees Anthony T. Lee, et al.,1 respectfully move the 
Court, pursuant to Rule 16(1) (c) of the Rules of the

1 Appellees Lee, et al. are the original plaintiffs in the case of 
Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F. Supp. 458 (M.D. 
Ala. 1967), on appeal here, sub nom. Wallace v. Lee, No. 489—out 
of which the instant proceeding arose. On behalf of the class of



2

Court, to affirm the judgment below, because the questions 
presented “are so unsubstantial as not to need further 
argument.”

Since appellants have omitted the argument portion of 
their jurisdictional statement,2 appellees must necessarily 
guess as to the nature of their arguments. However, extrap­
olating arguments from the “questions presented” portion 
of the jurisdictional statement, one finds nothing of sub­
stance.

First, appellants raise a venue objection, citing 28 U. S. C. 
§1391. That objection is squarely met by 28 U. S. C. 
§1392(a).

Second, appellants raise an objection as to joinder, citing 
Rule 20, F. R. Civ. P. Not only was joinder permissible un­
der Rule 20, but it was probably required under Rule 19(a), 
since, subsequent to the entry of the order in Lee v. Macon 
County Board of Education, 267 F. Supp. 458 (M. D. Ala. 
1967) on appeal here, sub nom. Wallace v. Lee, No. 489, the 
joinder of appellants became necessary to afford appellees 
complete relief. The district court in the main case antici-

all Negro schoolchildren in Alabama, they filed the supplemental 
complaint and motion requesting the court below to order the 
state-wide desegregation plan now in effect in Alabama (see 267 
F. Supp. at 461-62). Thus they clearly are appellees here pursuant 
to Rule 10(4), despite their omission by appellants from the juris­
dictional statement. In the main case, No. 489, appellees Lee, et at. 
have heretofore filed an opposition to an application for stay pend­
ing appeal, Wallace v. Lee, 387 U. S. 916 (1967), and a motion to 
affirm.

2 This omission appears to be a violation of Rule 13(2), which 
requires that a jurisdictional statement comply in all respects 
with Rule 15; Rule 15(1) (f) requires that the jurisdictional state­
ment contain “a statement of the reasons why the questions pre­
sented are so substantial as to require plenary consideration, with 
briefs on the merits and oral argument, for their resolution.”



3

pated that certain recalcitrant local school boards might 
refuse to comply with the Court’s school desegregation re­
quirements and might later need to be joined in the action. 
The Court observed (267 F. Supp. at 479) :

We are dealing here with state officials, and all we 
require at this time is that those officials affirmatively 
exercise their control and authority to implement a 
plan on a state-wide basis designed to insure a rea­
sonable attainment of equal educational opportunities 
for all children in the state regardless of their race. 
It may be that, in some instances a particular school 
district will need to be brought directly into the litiga­
tion to insure that the defendant state officials have 
implemented this Court’s decree and that the state 
is not supporting, financially or otherwise, a local sys­
tem that is being operated on an unconstitutional basis. 
Hopefully, these instances will be the exception and 
not the rule.

Fortunately, the Bibb County Board of Education has 
been the exception and not the rule: virtually all the 99 
school boards subject to the district court’s desegregation 
requirements have brought themselves into compliance and 
only a few have had to be joined in the main case.

Third, appellants object to the relief granted against 
them. Appellants were ordered to adopt a desegrega­
tion plan (see Jurisdictional Statement, pp. 20-32) sub­
stantially similar to the model decree formulated by the 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States 
v. Jefferson Coimty Board of Education, 372 F. 2d 836 
(5th Cir. 1966), approved en banc, 380 F. 2d 385 (5th Cir. 
1967), cert. den. sub nom., Caddo Parish School Board v.



4

United States (Nos. 256, 282 and 301), —— U. S. — , 
October 9, 1967. This plan has been adopted by virtually 
all the school districts in the State of Alabama. Yet, 13 
years after Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 
(1954), appellants resist. That resistance no longer raises 
a substantial federal question.

Respectfully submitted,

F eed D. G ray

352 Dexter Avenue 
Montgomery, Alabama 36104

J ack Greenberg 
J ames M. N abrit, III 
Charles H. J ones, J r.
Charles S t e ph e n  R alston 
M elvyn Zarr

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Appellees 
Anthony T. Lee, et al.



R E C Q R p W