Amended - Supplemental Pleading
Working File
January 1, 1973

9 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Amended - Supplemental Pleading, 1973. d853191a-54e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/693e5856-81f9-41cd-8530-7ecd362a01c0/amended-supplemental-pleading. Accessed June 17, 2025.
Copied!
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 ) ) AMENDED - SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING I. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 1. The pertinent prior proceedings and decisions in this cause in the Court of Appeals are set forth in Bradley v. Miliiken, 433 F.2d 397 (6th Cir. 1970); Bradley v. Milliken, 438 F .2d 897 (6th Cir. 1971); Bradley v. Milliken, _F.2d_ (6th Cir. Feb . 2 3 s 1972), cert, denied, __ _U < S. _, 41 U . S. L . W . 3175 ( Oct. 10, 1972); Bradley v, Miliiken, __F .2d (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 1972) and Bradley v, Ml111ken, F.2d (6th Cir. e n banc, June 12, 1973), The pertinent prior proceeding 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, aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 433 F.2d 897; December 3, 1970 Ruling on School Plans submitted, remanded with instructions, 438 F.2d o , 1971897; Feb. l6y/Rulings and Order on Class Action and Standing; Ruling on Issue of Segregation, 338 F.Supp. 582 (E.D.Mich. 1971) aff’d en banc, ____F.2d____(June 12, 1973); Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Detroit-Only Plans of Desegregation, F .Supp. (E.D.Mich. March 28, 1972), aff’d en banc, ___ _F.2d____(June 12 , 1973); Ruling on Propriety of a Metropolitan Remedy to Accomplish Desegregation of the Public Schools of the City of Detroit, F .Supp. _____(E.D .Mich. June 12, 1973) , aff’d en banc in part, and vacated en banc as set forth in ___F.2d (June 12, 1973); Ruling on Desegregation Area and Development of Plan, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support thereof, F .Supp. ____(E.D.Mich. June 14, 1972), vacated en banc in part and reinstated en banc in part as set forth in ____F.2d____(Jane 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 pleadings and evidence already of record in this cause are now and have been on file in the District Court and available for inspection and/or copying by any interested party. II. DEFENDANTS 3. The original Detroit School District Defendants are the Board of Education of the City of Detroit, its Superintendent (now Charles Wolfe), and the members of the Board of Education. 4. 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. i 5. The intervening Detroit defendants are (a) the Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO and (b) Denise Magdowski, et al. 6. The intervening suburban defendants are Allen Park Public Schools, School District of the City of Berkeley, Brandon Schools, Centerline Public Schools, Cherry Hill School District, 2 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 Share 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 No th Dearborn 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 Community School District, Roseville Public Schools, South Lake Schools, Taylor School District, Warren Consolidated Schools, Warren Woods Public Schools, Wayne-Westland Community 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. 7. The added state defendant is State Treasurer Allison Green. 8. 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, Highland Park City School District, School District of the City of Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills School District, Farmington Public School District, Clarenceville School District, West Bloomfield 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, School District of the City of Pontiac, 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, Huron School District, Northville Public 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; (c) the Boards of Education and Members of the Boards of Education in each school district in the tri county area; (d) the Superintendents of each school district in the tri-county area. 9. On or about November 6, 1971* the intervening and added suburban defendants were aware that the District Court ordered the State Board of Education to submit a metropolitan plan of desegregation for the Detroit Public Schools on November 5* 1971, and that the District Court did not propose to stop the voice of any suburban school district which wished to be heard. Prior thereto, intervening and added suburban defendants were aware that proof introduced in this cause on the trial of the issue of segregation concerned various state actions by the defendants (or their agents) then before the Court, state law, or the State of Michigan relating to the official segregation of black citizens in the Detroit Public Schools and their official segregation from white citizens in suburban schools! that the District Court warned during the trial that the State Defendants should consider the broadest possible remedies! and that motion to add all suburban school district defendants as defendants was filed and held in abeyance. No suburban defendant chose to file application for leave to intervene prior to February 9, 1972. On or about March 16, 1972, added suburban # • defendants were aware that the applications for leave to intervene filed by any suburban school district were granted by the District Court on March 15, 1972. Some of the added defendants thereafter filed writs of mandamus or prohibition against the District Judge which were denied without prejudice to their rights to intervene in the District/. Despite awareness of these facts, added suburban school district defendants, to this date, have chosen not to file application for leave to intervene. In any event, at every stage of these proceedings someone of the then party defendants presented the defenses available to any suburban school district defendants. III. INCORPORATION OF PRIOR COMPLAINT 10. Plaintiffs Ronald Bradley, et al., hereby incorporate by reference the entirety of their original complaint in this cause, filed August 19, 1970. (The original complaint is attached as Exhibit A). IV. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS TO CONFORM TO THE EVIDENCE 11. Wholly apart from the actions of any suburban defendant, various state actions— by the original Detroit and State defendants, their agents, state law, and the State of Michigan— contributed to the expanding pattern of official segregation and containment of black children in racially identifiable, virtually all black schools in the Detroit Public Schools surrounded by racially identifiable, virtually all white schools in the suburban public schools throughout the tri-county area. These state actions include, but are not limited to, new school construction; discriminatory reimbursement of transportation 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, 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 trans portation of students across school districts and within school districts with the purpose and/or effect of official school segregation; limitations and operation of bonding authority; and the operation of state aid and financial limitations, in f t f * ^ s *conjunction with other official actions of segregation,/left the Detroit School District virtually bankrupt and further identified it as a black school district. Wholly apart from any action by suburban school district defendants, the state actions noted above are significant, pervasive and causally related to the official and substantial segregation of black children in and within the Detroit Public Schools. Wholly apart from any action by suburban school district defendants, the state, through the actions noted above, has acted in a racially discriminatory fashion with the effect of creating and maintaining the expanding pattern of racial segregation noted above and along school district lines. Wholly apart from any action by suburban school district defendants, the pattern of racially identifiable, virtually all white schools in the suburbs is a result of the official containment and segre- l y V 'f 'f f t Olgation of black children in racially -and virtually all i black schools within the City of Detroit. 12. The state controls the instrumentalities whose action is necessary to remedy the expanding pattern of official and substantial school segregation noted above. Suburban school districts— like the Detroit School District, intermediate, local, and regional school districts— are subordinate governmental entities which have been created and carved out by the state and given varying powers to assist in carrying out the state responsibility for education and whose size and boundaries are uneven, often crossed by school children and school programs, hep.rana^little relationship to other governmental units. The State Board of Education has various authority and power— including, but not limited to, distribution of funds, accreditation, and general supervision and responsibility for public education in the state— -at its disposal to assist in planning and implementing any desegregation plan for the Detroit public schools extending beyond the geographic boundaries of the City of Detroit. # 13. The Detroit metropolitan area has grown as a series of interrelated and overlapping economic, recreation, service, and governmental units with many persons moving to the suburbs but working and enjoying services in Detroit, and others living in Detroit but working and enjoying services in the suburbs. The school and housing opportunities for black citizens in the Detroit Metropolitan Area, however, have been and remain restricted by discriminatory state action to areas of historic racial containment throughout the metropolitan area. 14. Although plaintiffs’ Plan of Desegregation limited to the geographic limits of the City of Detroit would accomplish more actual desegregation than now obtains in the system or would be achieved under Detroit Board Plans A and C, any actual plan of desegregation for the Detroit Public Schools limited to the geographic limits of the City of Detroit: (a) will, by official action, make all schools in the Detroit Public School system racially identifiable as black and make the entire Detroit school system identifably black; (b) will not achieve the effective desegregation of the Detroit Public Schools; (c) does not promise realistically, to substitute, now or hereafter, a system of just schools for the system of illegally segregated white schools and black schools found; (d) will not now eradicate the constitutional violations found and will not hereafter prevent their reoccurence. 15. The only feasible plan of desegregation for the constitutional violations found, considering the practicalities of the Situation, 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 effective desegregation plan. separate, and distinct/within the City and a few other - 7 16. The pupils, teachers, resources and facilities of the following defendant local and intermediate school districts are necessary in this cause for the limited purpose of accom plishing the effective desegregation of 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; Berkley City; Highland Park; Royal Oak City; Clawson City; Birmingham; Oak Park City; Southfield; Bloomfield Hills; Farmington; Clarenceville; West Bloomfield; Livonia; Garden City; South Redford; North Dearborn Heights; Crestwood; Cherry Hill; Redford Union; Taylor; Dearborn 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; MeIvindale-North Allen. 17. 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, limitation of their additional school capacity and staff hiring except insofar as they affirmatively promote desegregation: Pontiac City; Novi Community; Holly Area; Huron Valley; Lake Orion Community; Oxford Area Community; Rochester Community; Walled Lake Consolidated; Avondale; Brandon Township; Clarkston Community; South Lyon Community; Waterford; Mt. Clemens Community; Anchor Bay; Richmond Community; Romeo Community; Chippewa Valley; Clintondale; L'Anse Creuse; South Lake; Utica Community; Armada Area; New Haven Community; Plymouth Community; Huron; Northville; Van Buren; Flat Roch Community; Gibraltar; Grosse lie Township; Trenton Public Schools; Woodhaven. 18. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, as additional allegations to conform to the evidence, the Findings of Fact in Support of Desegregation Area and Development of Plans issued by the District Court June 1*1, 1972. [These Findings of Fact are attached as Exhibit B]. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that upon the filing of this Complaint, the Court advance this cause on the docket, order the Court-appointed Panel to proceed 'with its planning and studies, order a speedy hearing of this action 8 # according to law and the guidelines established by 4ke S Circuit in its Opinion and Order of June 12, 1973, and upon such hearing: a. Enter a decree approving an effective metropolitan plan of desegregation for the Detroit Public Schools which promises realistically to work now and hereafter 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 theSixth Circuit, that existing governmental and organiza tional structures shall, in any case, be maintained to the extent possible, pending a reasonable opportunity for the Michigan Legislature to act to alter same. b. Enter a decree enjoining defendants to implement no later than the 1973-74 school year and maintain thereafter such an effective, metropolitan plan for the desegregation of the Detroit Public Schools. c. Award to plaintiffs’ attorneys reasonable counsel fees for services rendered and to be rendered inland reimbursement for all out-of-pocket expenses of;this action. d. Retain continuing jurisdiction of this cause and grant such other and additional relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, J. HAROLD FLANNERY Center for Lav/ & Education- 61 Kirkland St. Cambridge, Mass. 02133 PAUL R. DIMOND 906 Rose Avenue Ann Arbor, Mich. 4810*1 313-769-3899 NATHANIEL JONES General Counsel N.A.A.C.P. 1790 Broadway New York, New York 10019 LOUIS R. LUCAS WILLIAM E. CALDWELL Ratner, Sugermon & Lucas 525 Commerce Title Bldg. Memphis, Tennessee 38103 901- 523-8601 JACK GREENBERG NORMAN J. CHACKKIN 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 - Q