Letter from Lucas to Co-Counsel RE Amended Complaint and Prayer for Relief

    * • •
R ATN ER ,  S U G A R  MON & LUC A S

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

S U I T E  5 2 5

C O M M E R C E  T I T L E  B U I L D I N G

M A R V I N  l . R A T N E R  MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 38103 p h o n e  (9 0 1 ) 5 2 5 - s e o
R. B.  S U G A R M O N ,  J R .

L O U I S  R. L U C A S

IRVIN M. SA LK Y  27 August 1973
W A L T E R  L. BAILEY,  J R .

J A M E S  T. A L L I S O N

M I C H A E L  B. KAY 

WILLIAM E.  C A L D W E L L  

C.  A N T H O N Y  J O H N S O N  

E L I J A H  N O E L ,  J R .

MEMO TO: NATHANIEL JONES
PAUL DIMOND 
J. H. FLANNERY ,
JACK GREENBERG 
JAMES NABRIT 
NORMAN CHACHKIN 
ELLIOTT HALL

FROM: LOUIS R. LUCAS
RE: AMENDED COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO EVIDENCE AND

PRAYER FOR RELIEFF in BRADLEY -V. MILLIKEN
Gentlemen:

I would appreciate telephone contact from you 
if you have any suggested changes. We will have to get 
this retyped on a stencil when it is in final form and 
have sufficient copies run off for service on all defen­
dants. Therefore, I really need your comments no later 
than Thursday morning. We have incorporated most of 
Norman's suggestions which we found to be most helpful.

May I remind us all that the filing date set 
by the Court is September 1st.

LRL:ol



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )
)

Plaintiffs, )
)

vs. )
)

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. )

)
...............................................................................................................  ' ■ ) * I.

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 35257

AMENDED COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO EVIDENCE
AND

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

I . Prior Proceedings

1. Pertinent prior 
in this cause in the Court of 
Bradley v. Milliken, 433 F.2d 
ley v. Milliken, 438 F.2d 897 
v. Milliken, ___  F.2d ____

proceedings and decisions 
Appeals are set forth in 
897 (6th Cir. 1970); Brad- 
(6th Cir. 1971); Bradley 

(6th Cir. Feb. 23, 1972),



cert. denied,  ____ U.S.    _, 41 U.S.L.W. 3175
( Oct. 10, 1972); Bradley v. Milliken,  _ 

F .2d _____  (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 1972) and Bradley v. Milliken,

___________ F . 2 d _____, (6th Cir. en banc, June 12, 1973) . The

pertinent prior proceedings and decisions in this cause in 
the District Court are set forth in September 3, 1970 Ruling 

on Application for Preliminary Injunction, Motion to 
Intervene, and Motion to Dismiss, aff1d in part and rev *d in 

part, 433 F.2d 897; December 3, 1970 Ruling on School Plans 
submitted, remanded and instructions, 438 F.2d 897; Feb. 16, 

1971 Rulings and Order on Class Action and Standing; Ruling 
on Issue of Segregation, 338 F.Supp. 482 (E.D.Mich. 1971)

af f1 d en banc, _____ F . 2d ________ (June 12, 1973) ; Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Detroit-Only Plans of De­
segregation, _____ F.Supp. ___ _ (E.D. Mich. March 28, 1972) ,

aff1 d en banc, _______ F. 2d _____ (June 12, 1973) ; Ruling on
Propriety of a Metropolitan Remedy to Accomplish Desegrega­

tion of the Public Schools of the City of Detroit, ______
F.Supp. _____ , (E.D. Mich. June 12, 1973) , aff1d en banc in

part, and vacated en banc as set forth in ' F.2d ________
(June 12, 1973); Ruling on Desegregation Area and Develop­
ment of Plan, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in

Support Thereof, ______  F.Supp. _____  (E.D.Mich. June 14,
19 72) , vacated en banc in part and reinstated eri banc in part

as set forth in ____ F.2d ______  (June 12, 1973) ; Order for

Acquisition of Transportation, ______ F.Supp. ______ (E.D.Mich.
July 11, 1972) , vacated en banc as set forth in ________  F.2d

_______  (June 12, 1973).

2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked 

under 28 U.S.C. §1331(a), 1343(3) and (4), this being a suit 

to redress the deprivation under color of Michigan law, sta­
tute, regulation, custom and/or usage of rights, privileges 
and immunities secured by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth

2



Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and/or 
by 42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1983, 1988 and 2000d providing for the 
equal rights of all citizens and persons and for the same 

rights to the full and equal benefits of all laws and pro­
ceedings for the security of persons and property as is 

enjoyed by white citizens and persons. This is an action 
for injunctive relief, and for declaratory and other relief 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201, 2202. The matter in contro­
versy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or 
value of ten-thousand dollars ($10,000.00).

3. The pleadings and evidence already of record 

in this cause are now and have been on file in the District
t

Court and available for inspection and/or copying by any 
interested party. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference 
the entirety of their original Complaint, in this cause, 
filed August 18, 1970, as though set forth verbatim herein.

A copy is attached herewith as Exhibit A. II.

II. DEFENDANTS
4. The original Detroit School District Defen­

dants are the Board of Education of the City of Detroit, 
its Superintendent (now Charles Wolfe), and the members of 
the Board of Education.

5. The original State Defendants are Governor 

William J. Milliken, Attorney General Frank J. Kelley, the 
Michigan State Board of Education and its Superintendent,

John W. Porter.

6. The intervening Detroit defendants are (a) the 

Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, American Federa­
tion of Teachers, AFL-CIO and (b) Denise Magdowski, et al.

7. The intervening suburban defendants are Allen 
Park Public Schools, School District of the City of Berkeley,

-3-



Brandon Schools, Centerline Public Schools, Cherry Hill 

School District, Chippewa Valley Public Schools, School 

District of the City of Clawson, Crestwood School District, 
Dearborn Public Schools, Dearborn Heights School District 

No. 7, East Detroit Public Schools, School District of the 

City of Ferndale, Flat Rock Community Schools, Garden City 

Public Schools, Gibralter School District, School District 

of the City of Hazel Park, Intermediate School District of 
the County of Macomb, Lake Shore Public Schools, Lakeview 
Public Schools, The Lamphere Schools, Lincoln Park Public 

Schools, Madison District Public Schools, Melvindale-North 
Allen Park School District, School District of North Dear­

born Heights, Novi Community School District, Oak Park 

School District, Oxford Area Community Schools, Redford 
Union School District No. 1, Richmond Community Schools, 

School District of the City of River Rouge, Riverview Com­
munity School District, Roseville Public Schools, South 
Lake Schools, Taylor School District, Warren Consolidated 

Schools, Warren Woods Public Schools, Wayne-Westland Com­
munity Schools, Woodhaven School District, Wyandotte Public 

Schools, Grosse Pointe Schools, Southfield Public Schools, 
School District of the City of Royal Oak and Kerry Green, 
et al.

8. The added state defendant is State Treasurer 

Allison Green.

9. The added suburban defendants are (a) the 
Wayne County Intermediate School District, the Oakland County 

Intermediate School District, Lakeview Public Schools, 
Fitzgerald Public Schools, Fraser Public Schools, Harper 
Woods School District, Van Dyke Public Schools, Hamtramck 
School District, School District of the City of Troy, High­
land Park City School District, School District of the City

-4-



of Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills School District, Farmington 

Public School District, Clarenceville School District, West 

Bloom field School District, Livonia Public School District, 
South Redford School District, Romulus Township School 
District, Inkster School District, Westwood Community School 
District, Ecorse Public School District, Southgate Community 

School District, Riverview Community School District, Holly 
Area Schools, Huron Valley Schools, Lake Orion Community 

School District, Rochester Community School, Walled Lake 
Consolidated School District, Avondale School District, 
Clarkston Community Schools, South Lyon Community Schools, 

Waterford School District, Mt. Clemens Community School 
District, Anchor Bay School District, Romeo Community Schools, 
Clintondale Community Schools, L ’anse Creuse Public Schools, 
South Lake Schools, Utica Community Schools, Armada Area 

Schools, New Haven Community Schools, Plymouth Community 
School District, Van Buren Public School District, Grosse 
lie Township School District, Trenton Public School District; 
(b) all other school districts, if any, in the tri-county 
area except the School District of the City of Pontiac; (c) 
the Boards of Education and Members of the Boards of Educa­
tion in each school district in the tri-county area except 
the School District of the City of Pontiac; (d) the Superin­
tendents of each school district in the tri-county area except 

the School District of the City of Pontiac.

III. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS TO CONFORM TO THE EVIDENCE

10. Various actions by the original Detroit and 
State defendants and their agents, in some instances supported 
by or in conjunction with State laws have, wholly apart from 
any actions of the suburban defendants or any of them, signif­
icantly contributed to the containment of black children in

-5-



racially identifiable, virtually all-black schools operated 

in the City of Detroit. The pattern of official segregation 

and containment has been an expanding one, as the black com­

munity within Detroit has expanded, but with the consistent 

result of establishing and maintaining racially identifiable 
black Detroit schools surrounded by racially identifiable, 

virtually all-white schools throughout the tri-county area. 
These actions have included, but are not limited to, new 

school construction; discriminatory reimbursement of trans­
portation funds; the validation and reimposition of the 

boundaries of the Detroit School District, imposition of a

segregatory pupil assignment policy for the Detroit Public*
Schools, creation of segregated school regional boundaries, 
recission of steps toward desegregation, and the particular 

carve-out of regional school governance units wholly within 
the Detroit School District by Act 48 of the Public Acts of 

1970; the transfer and/or transportation of students across 

school districts and within school districts with the purpose 

and/or effect of official school segregation; limitations on 
operation of bonding authority; and the operation of state 

aid and financial limitations, in conjunction with other 
official actions of segregation which left the Detroit School 
District virtually bankrupt and further identified it as a 

black school district. This consistent and repeated discrim­
ination by State officials and agencies, manifested by, among 
others, the acts listed herein, is causally related in a 
significant manner to the present, nearly total segregation 
of black children within the tri-county area in virtually all­
black public schools within the jurisdiction of the original 

Detroit defendants, their agents and successors. In carrying 
out this pattern and practice of official segregation, the 

State and its agencies have advantaged themselves of existing 

school district lines and jurisdictional boundaries with the

6 -



effect of further entrenching the containment of black stu­
dents in black Detroit schools; without any reference to 
any actions of suburban defendants, the prevailing pattern 
of racially identifiable, virtually all-white schools in the 
suburbs of Detroit is a result, in part, of the official 
policies of containment and segregation of black children in 

racially identifiable and virtually all-black schools within 
the City of Detroit, as described above.

11. State agencies control the instrumentalities 
whose presence or cooperation is necessary to remedy the 

current but expanding pattern of official, substantial racial 

public school segregation described above. Suburban school
i

districts -- like the Detroit School District, and like 
intermediate, regional and indeed all local school districts —  
are subordinate governmental entities created and fashioned by 
the State. Each is given varying powers to assist in carrying 
out the State responsibility for education; the size of each 
varies and the boundaries of each are irregular, little related 
to the boundaries of other governmental units, and are often 

crossed by school children or school personnel in order to 
further various school programs. The present school district 
boundaries serve no compelling state interest. The State 
Board of Education has considerable authority and power —  
including, but not limited to, distribution of funds, accredi­
tation or other approval, and general supervision and 

responsibility for public education throughout Michigan —  at 
its disposal to assist in planning and implementing any 
desegregation plan for the Detroit public schools which may 
extend beyond, or involve districts or schools located without, 
the present geographic boundaries of the City of Detroit. The 
State Board and Superintendent have the authority to require 
the elimination of segregation among and within school districts 
in Michigan.

-7



12. The Detroit metropolitan area has grown as a 

series of interrelated and overlapping economic, recreation, 

service, and governmental units with many persons locating 
in the suburbs but working and enjoying services in Detroit, 

and others living in Detroit but working and enjoying ser­
vices in the suburbs. The school and housing opportunities 

for black citizens in the Detroit Metropolitan Area, however, 

have been and remain restricted by discriminatory govern­
mental and private action.,, and distinct areas within the City 

and a few other areas of historic racial containment in the 
metropolitan area.

13. Plans of desegregation limited to the present

geographic limits of the City of Detroit will accomplish more 
actual desegregation than now exists within that school system, 

but in the context of available alternatives not limited to 
those geographic boundaries, such plans: (a) will not achieve
the effective desegregation of the public schools in Detroit, 
(b) will not alter the racially identifiably black identity 

now shared by most Detroit schools, but will rather extend 
that identity to all Detroit schools. In light of realistic 

and feasible desegregation measures not limited to Detroit 

which are capable of being taken now, plans of desegregation 

limited to Detroit do not hold promise of establishing "just 
schools" in place of the present "white" and "black" schools
in that school system, and such plans consequently will not 
remedy the constitutional violation which is the subject of 

this lawsuit nor prevent its recurrence.

14. A far more effective plan of desegregation is 
constitutionally required; considering the practicalities of 
the situation, the only feasible and effective plan must 
involve crossing the boundary lines between the Detroit

-8-



school district and other school districts in the tri-county

area for the limited purpose of effectuating meaningful de­

segregation .

15. The pupils, teachers, resources and facilities 

of the following defendant 3-Ocal and intermediate school 

districts are necessary in this cause for the limited purpose 
of accomplishing the effective desegregation oi the Detroit 
public schools now and hereafter, including, but not limited 
to, inclusion in the desegregation area for pupil and staff 

assignment:
Wayne County Intermediate; Oakland County 
Intermediate; Macomb County Intermediate;
Lake Shore; Roseville City, East Detroit 
City; South Lake; Grosse Pointe; Lakeview; 
Centerline; Fitzgerald; Warren Woods;
Fraser; Harper Woods; Van Dyke; Warren 
Consolidated; Hazel Park City; Hamtramck;
Lamphere; Madison Heights; City of Troy;
Ferndale City; Berkeley City; Highland 
Park; Royal Oak City; Clawson City;
Birmingham; Oak Park City; Southfield;
Bloomfield Hills; Farmington; South 
Redford; North Dearborn Heights; Crestwood;
Cherry Hill; Redford Union; Taylor; Dear­
born City; Dearborn Heights; Fairlane;
Romulus Township; Inkster City; Wayne- 
Westland Community; Westwood Community;
Ecorse; Allen Park; Southgate Community;
River Rouge City; Riverview Community;
Wyandotte City; Lincoln Park City;
Melvindale-North Allen.

16. The pupils, teachers, resources and facilities 

of the following defendant school districts are necessary for 

the limited purpose of accomplishing the effective desegre­

gation of the Detroit public schools now and hereafter, 
including, but not limited to, review of any additions to 
school building capacity and staff hiring to determine their 
present or potential effect on the school desegregation plan:

Novi Community; Holly Area; Huron Valley;
Lake Orion Community; Oxford Area Community; 
Rochester Community; Walled Lake Consolidated; 
Avondale; Brandon Township; Clarkston Commun­
ity; South Lyon Community; Waterford;

-9-



Mt. Clemens Community; Anchor Bay; Richmond 
Community; Romeo Community; Chippewa Valley; 
Clintondale; L'Anse Vreuse; South Lake;
Utica Community; Armada Area; New Haven 
Community; Plymouth Community; Huron; North- 
ville; Van Buren? Flat Rock Community; 
Gibraltar; Grosse lie Township; Trenton 
Public Schools; Woodhaven.

17. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, as 

additional allegations to conform to the evidence, the 
Findings of Fact in Support of Desegregation Area and develop­

ment of Plans issued by the District Court June 14, 1972, 

paragraph 1 to 91. (These Findings of Fact are attached as 

Exhibit B).

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that the 

Court order a speedy hearing of this action according to law 
and the guidelines established by the Sixth Circuit in its 

Opinion and Order of June 12, 1973, and upon such hearing:
a. Enter a decree to remedy the segregation 

found including an interim remedy;
b. Enter a decree approving an effective 

metropolitan plan of desegregation for the Detroit Public 
Schools which promises realistically to work now and here­
after to maintain a racially unified, non-discriminatory 
system of public schooling. Such plan should include the 

utilization of all reasonable and feasible methods and tools 
of desegregation as set forth in the guidelines established 
by the Sixth Circuit in its decision en banc of June 12, 1973, 

and the controlling decisions of the Supreme Court; provided, 
however, pursuant to the decision of the Sixth Circuit, that 
existing governmental and organizational structures shall, in 

any case, be maintained to the extent possible, pending a 
reasonable opportunity for the Michigan Legislature to act

to alter same;
c. Enter a decree enjoining defendants to 

implement no later than the 1974-75 school year and maintain 
thereafter such an effective metropolitan plan for the

-10-



desegregation of the Detroit Public Schools; •
d. Award to plaintiffs' attorneys reasonable 

counsel fees for services rendered and to be rendered in, 

and reimbursement for all out-of-pocket expenses of, this 

action;
e. Retain continuing jurisdiction of this 

cause and grant such other and additional relief as may ap­
pear to the Court to be equitable and just.

Respectfully submitted,

PAUL R. DIMOND 
906 Rose Avenue 
Ann Arbor, Michigan

48104
J. HAROLD FLANNERY 

Center for Law & 
Education 
Larsen Hall 
14 Appian Way 
Cambridge, Mass.

02138

LOUIS R. LUCAS 
WILLIAM E. CALDWELL

RATNER, SUGARMON & LUCAS 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

NATHANIEL JONES 
1790 Broadway 
New York, New York 10019

JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York

10019
ELLIOTT HALL

950 Guardian Building 
Detroit, Michigan

48226

-11-