Certificate Required by Local Rule 13(a); Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees

     [||a39232ab-36ec-4842-8ecb-d2bb7e7b7746||] » 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

NO. 79-3595 

THE CLARKSDALE MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL 
DISTRICT, ET AL., 

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, 

VS. 

REBECCA E. HENRY, ET AL., 

PLAINTIFFS~-APPELLEES. 

E CERTIFICATE REQUIRED BY LOCAL RULE 13(a) 

Undersigned counsel of record for plaintiffs-appellees, 

Rebecca E. Henry, et al., certifies that the following listed 

parties have an interest in the outcome of this case. These 

fepvescntatt ons are made in order that Judges of this Court 

may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal pursuant £o 

Local Rule 13(a): 

Rebecca E. Henry, et al. 

Elijah Wilson, on behalf of his minor daughter, 
Benita Faye Wilson : 

Bennie Gooden, on behalf of his minor son and 
daughter, Jonathan Arzell Gooden and Marian 
Lavern Gooden E
E
E
 e
e 

A
A
 
S
O
 

Y
L
.
 

C
S
 
i
 
r
i
 

E
D
 

on
 

[
3
 

-
 

v 

N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

—
 
—
—
 

All black school age children of Clarksdale, 
Mississippi 

r
r
r
 

Fred L. Banks, Jr., Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 



" : » 

Clarksdale Municipal Separate School Pistrice 

Robert M. Ellard 

Robert R. Birdsong 

leon L., Porter, Jv. 

Jesse G. Hughes, Jr. 

Glenn D. Gates, V.M.D. 

Mayo D. Wilson 

Semmes Luckett, Esquire, 
Counsel for Defendants-Appellants 

FRERL. BANKS, JRY 
K Attorney for Plaintiffg-Appellees 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Certificate Required By Local Rule 13(a) ---==- 

Table Of AULhOTifies wesowmmmmwwn nen ieee 

TISSUES PLESEL al www oe msm mim mnmeme o miow e o0 e  e1 m 0 

Statement of The Case and Pacis mm 

Summary of the Argument ord em re saws rae 

Argument 

The District Court Clearly Acted 
Within Its Authority To Add Parties 
As Prescribed By Rule 21 Of The 
Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure ===mewwwwae 

Conclusion ~wewwmcevammmawas Jo fe a oe 

CTL I FICHE S Of SOT VICE emia ime se is 0 ven inne di 

- AY 

PAGE 

iv 

10 

11 



—
 
—
—
—
 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Anderson v. Moorer, 372 F.2d 747 
(5th Cir. 1967) 

Dow Chemical Co. v. U.S.B.P.A,, 
605 F.2d 673 (3rd Cir. 1979) 

Geraghty v. United States Parole 
Commission, 579 F.2c 238 (3rd Cir. 1978) 

Gerstein v, Pugh, 420 U.S, 103, 43 L.E4.2d 
54 (1975) 

Hardy v. Porter, 613 F.2d .112 
(5th Cir. 1980) 

Indianapolis School Comm'rs. v. Jacobs 
420 U.S, 128, 43 L.E4.24 74 (1975) 

Jones v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate 
School District, Civil Action No. 77-94-K (D.C. N.D., Miss.) = 

Kuahulu v. Employers In s. of Wausau, 557 F.2d 1334 (9¢h Cir. 1977) 

Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24, | 
94 85. Ct. 2655 (1974) a 

Satterwhite v. City of Greenville, 
578 F,24 987 (5ch Cir, 1978) 

United States v. Corinth Municipal 
Separate School District, 414 F, Supp. 1336 (N.D, Miss. 1976) 

Watson v. Employers Liability Assur. 
Corp., 202 F.2d 407 (5th Cir. 1953) 

Other: 

Rule 21, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

Article III, United States Constitution 

. PAGE(S) 

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
 
t
e
 e
pe
e —
—
—
—
 



: 
: 
i 
t 

| 

R
T
 

—
—
—
 

S
T
 

on
 —
 

—
—
r
 

ISSUE PRESENTED 

THE ISSUE PRESENTED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER 

A DISTRICT COURT MAY PROPERLY ADD PARTIES 

PLAINTIFF TO AN UNCERTIFIED CLASS ACTION 

AND CERTIFY THE ACTION AS A CLASS ACTION 

AFTER THE ISSUES HAVE BECOME MOOT AS TO 

THE ORIGINAL NAMED PLAINTIFFS. 



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

NO. 79-3595 

THE CLARKSDALE MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL 
DISTRICT, ET AL., 

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, 

VS. 

REBECCA E. HENRY, ET AL., i i 
i 
: : 
$ 

: 
’ 

| 
| 

'PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES. 

—
—
 

BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS 

This case was begun on April 22, 1964, when a complaint ; 

was filed on behalf of several black children and others 

similarly situated in the Northern District of Mississippi, 

accompanied by a motion Lor a preliminary injunction wherein 

the plaintiffs asserted that defendants were operating a dual 

school system, that defendants/appellants assigned pupils to 
: 

schools according to race, and that the situation operated to 

the detriment of black pupils in the district. 



: 

’ 

d by the defendants/appeliants, and it was ordered into effect; Plaintiffs appealed, and on March 6, 1969, this cours rejected that plan and recommended the formulation of alternate plans, On January 10, 1970, the district court adopted ga Plan which went into ef 
February 2, 1970, 

fect on 

| 
| 

| 

$ 

: 

Pupils in the school district in response 
to finally dismiss the school case, and alleged that the 



» 

| 

i 
' 

| 
i 

i 

—
—
—
—
—
r
—
—
 

o
m
 
—
—
—
 

minor daughter, 

behalf of his minor son and daughter and Marian Lavern Gooden, 

defendant school district has not complied with the desegregation Orders, The district court had, 

Hnth and denied defendants/ 
== Order ‘duteg July 19, 1979) On’ Septemper 27, 1979, the district court granted 

Plaintijiffg: motion adding Elijah Wilson, on behalf of his - 
and Bennie Gooden, on 
» Jonathan Arzell Gooden 

+ 4S plaintiffs, 
The court, 

= Recentiy the schooil district had been found by the = : 
| 

district court to engage in discriminatory hiring Practices - 
| 

in Hardy v. Porter, 613 F.2d 112 (5th Cir’ 1980), ‘and ‘sti1g 

another Claim of employment discrims 1 

v : 
Tormdnation is. pending 

erdia Jones’ v,. Clartsdus.. NICIPALl Sancrae lpal Se arate School District, -U. Miss), 



f 
i 
| 

E
E
 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
 

_
 

E
E
 
a
 

—
—
 

a
h
a
a
 
S
a
 

et 
® 

; . 

numerosity, commonality, typicality, ang adequacy of representation Were present. 

From this order, the defendants, Clarksdale Municipal Separate Scho 1 District, et al,, appealed. 

”-, 



SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 
———= 

=F HE ARGUMENT 



128, ‘43 1;pq.



or controversy, Reading Jacobs in this 
fashion, however, is incompatible with 's holding inp both 
Prior and subsequent cases, and further 

+ +s the Jacobs case should not be 
Viewed ag Standard for the Proposition 
that the federal courts are constity- 
tionally barred fron continuing to 
adjudicate disputes when the named 

579 F.2d a; 250 
Significantly, in Ceraghty Certification had been. denied 

—
—
—
—
—
 

by the bein eonink yet 

: 
H
i
l
d
e
 
s
a
n
 



ws 603 7.29 gy (3rd cir, 1979). 
The doctrine well Outlined in Gera hty, Supra, essentially 

of each case," Kuahyily Ve Employers Ins, of Wausay, 557 F.2d 1334 

(9th Cir, 1977). The Supreme Court has she i 21 Ls] 

Cc 

* 
oh 

® 

§ 
yy 

Ld 



| class brings tg the court "live" Plaintiffg entitled to relief, 
United Airlines v, Mc ald, 432 u.s, 385, 97 5. Ct. 2484 (1977), 
The Supreme Court hag Sustained the Justiciability of "headless 
class actions, that is, even uncertified class actions in which | 
the named plaintiff retains no "live effectuate relief to a1} class members, See Richardson V. 
Ramirez, 41g 1.8, 24, 94 gs, Cet, 2655 (1974), 

Clarksdale Municipal Separate School District, The new plain- 
tiffs ang £he clnsa they represent, a]1 black Pupils in the 
Clarksdale School District, fulfill che Rule 23 Prerequisites 
of Numerosity, Commonality, Lypicality and adequate representa 
tion 4S properly determined by the district court, ‘Gerstein -y. 
Pugh, 420 u.s. 103, 43 L.Ed. 2d 54 (1975). Moreover, this case 

action, ang only class relief hag been ordered, It is merely 
logical and proper that the district court, having the case 
before it, simply certify the class to Cure any formal defect 
in the Proceedings, 



CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, appellees respectfully 

pray that the order of the district court allowing plain- 

tiffs' Motion To Add Additional Parties and certifying 
this class action be affirmed. 

FRED L. BANKS, JR. ~ 

. BANKS & NICHOLS 

318 East Pearl Street. 
Jackson, MS 39201 

JACK GREENBERG 

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees [||a39232ab-36ec-4842-8ecb-d2bb7e7b7746||]