LDF Attorneys Argue 11 Cases in 10 Days

    TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

UNITED STATESCOURT OF A P P E A L S

THEODORE GIBSON, as next friend for THEODORE 
GIBSON, JR., ET AL.,

Appellants,

BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF DADE 
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL.,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of Florida.

(ORIGINAL RECORD RECEIVED JAN. 11/57.)

FIFTH CIRCUIT.

No. 16,482

versus



INDEX.

PAGE!

Amended Petition for Declaratory Judgment ..........  1

Amendment to Amended Complaint .......................    7

Motion of Defendants to Dismiss Amended Petition
for Declaratory Judgment .........    8

Judgment, entered 11/29/56 .............................    10

Notice of Appeal .............................................................  14

Election of Petitioners to Stand on Amended Com­
plaint .......................................................................  15

Appellants’ Statement of Points on Appeal ..............  16

Appellants’ Designation of Contents of Record on
Appeal .................     17

Clerk’s Certificate ...........................................................  19



On A ugust 27, 1956 AM ENDED PETITIO N  FOR D E ­
CLARATORY JUD G M EN T w as filed in the w ords 
and  figures as follows:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN 
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, MIAMI DIVISION.

Civil Action No. 6978-M.

THEODORE GIBSON, as nex t friend  for THEODORE 
R. GIBSON, JR .; et al.,

P etitioners,
versus

BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF DADE 
COUNTY, FLORIDA, a F lorida C orporation; e t 
al.,

D efendants.

1.

A. The ju risd iction  of th is Court is invoked under 
Title 28, United S ta tes Code, Section 1331 as  th is ac­
tion a rises  under the F ou rteen th  A m endm ent to the 
Constitution of the U nited S tates, Section 1, and Title 
42, United S tates Code, Section 1981 and th a t the 
m a tte r  in controversy  exceeds, exclusive of in terest 
and costs the sum  or value of T hree Thousand ($3,-
000.00) Dollars.

B. The jurisd iction  of th is Court is also invoked 
under Title 28, United S tates Code, Section 1343. This 
action is authorized by Title 42, United S ta tes Code, 
Section 1983 to be com m enced by any citizen of the 
United States or other person within' the ju risd iction



2

thereof to  red re ss  the  deprivation, u n d er color of s ta te  
law, s ta tu te , ordinance, regulation , custom  or usage, 
of rights, privileges and im m unities secured  by the  
Fourteenth  A m endm ent to the Constitution of the 
U nited S tates, Section' 1, and by Title 42, United S ta tes 
Code, Secion 1981 providing for the equal rig h ts  of 
citizen's and of all persons w ith in  the ju risd ic tion  of 
the U nited S tates.

C. The jurisd iction  of th is Court is also invoked 
under Title 28, U nited S ta tes Code, Section 2281. This 
is an action for an  in terlocutory  and p e rm an en t in­
junction res tra in in g , upon the grounds of uriconstitu- 
tionality, the enforcem ent of provisions of the Con- 
sitution and S ta tu tes  of the S ta te  of F lo rida  by re­
s tra in ing  the defendants from  enforcing said  Constitu­
tion and S tatu tes.

2.

P lain tiffs  fu rther rep resen t th a t  th is action is 
b rought pu rsu an t to Rule 23(c) (3) of the F ed era l 
R ules of Civil P rocedu re  for them selves individually 
and as rep resen ta tiv es  of a class of persons who a re  
all residen ts  of D ade County, F lo rida  and m em bers 
of the colored race . T hat the class is m ore specifical­
ly identified as p a ren ts  of colored children of school 
age who in every  resp ec t possess the  qualifications 
for a ttend ing  the Public  Schools of D ade Conn'ty, F lo r­
ida. T hat the m em bers of the class a re  so num erous 
th a t it is im prac ticab le  to b ring  them  all before the 
Court. They seek com m on relief based  upon common 
questions of law  and fact.



3

3.

In fan t plain tiffs a re  N egroes, citizens of the United 
S ta tes  and of the S tate  of F lo rida; they  a re  all re s i­
dents of D ade County, F lorida. E ach  of the infant 
plain tiffs satisfies all of the requ irem en ts for adm is­
sion to the Public  Schools of Dade County, F lo rida. 
The adu lt plain tiffs a re  p a ren ts  of the in fan t p la in ­
tiffs and a re  suing a s  th e ir respective  next friends. 
E ach  of the in fan t p lain tiffs seeks adm ission to the 
Public  Schools of Dade County, F lo rida  w ithout rac ia l 
segregation.

4.

The defendant, W. R. Thom as is Superin tendent of 
the  Public  Schools of D ade County, F lo rida. T ha t un­
der s ta te  law, Section 230.21 F lorida S ta tu tes  Anno­
ta ted , 1941 the county school boards a re  constitu ted  
bodies corpora te  and th a t the Dade County B oard of 
Public Instruction  is one such corporation. T hat the 
defendants C. R aym ond Van Duseh, S. L. A lsworth, 
R obert S. B utler, Helen Vosloh, and A nna B renner 
M yers, are  m em bers of the B oard of Public  In s tru c ­
tion of D ade County, F lorida. T hat the defendants 
jo intly  m ain ta in  and supervise all of the Public  School 
of D ade County, F lo rida  under a system  w hich pro­
vides certa in  schools for the  education of w hite chil­
dren  only and others for the education of colored chil­
d ren  only.

5.

T hat on the 7th day of Septem ber, 1955 the  p lain tiff 
petitioned the B oard of Public  Instruction  of D ade



4

County to abolish ra c ia l seg regation  in  the Public  
Schools of D ade County, F lo rida  as soon as is p ra c ­
ticable in conform ity w ith the decision of the  Suprem e 
Court of the United S tates in Brown v. B oard  of 
Education, 349 U. S. 294.

That, the B oard of Public Instruction  did not de­
segregate  the schools nor has it a t any tim e before 
or since the aforem entioned request of the plaintiffs, 
done anything tow ard  estab lish ing  an  in teg ra ted  
school system , but th a t on' the con tra ry , the Dade 
County B oard of Public  Instruction  adhered  to a  
s ta tem en t of policy reg ard in g  the operation  of its 
schools which it had  m ade on A ugust 17, 1955, w hich 
in  p a r t  is as follows:

“ It is deem ed by the B oard  th a t the b est in te re s t 
of the pupils and the orderly  and efficient adm in is­
tra tio n  of the school system  can  best be p reserved  
if the reg is tra tio n  and a ttendance  of pupils en tering  
school com m encing the cu rren t school te rm  rem ains 
unchanged. Therefore, the Superintendent, p rincipals 
and all o ther personnel concerned a re  herew ith  ad­
vised th a t until fu rth e r notice the free public school 
system  of Dade County will continue to be operated, 
m ain ta ined  and conducted on' a nonin tegrated  basis.

The public school sy stem  in D ade County since its 
beginning has followed the law s and Constitution of 
the S tate  of F lo rida  w hich requ ires segregation' of 
races. All buildings have been located in accordance 
w ith these laws.



5

6.

T hat the Board of Public  Instruction  has refused  
to desegregate  the schools operated  and m ain ta ined  
by it as soon as w as p rac ticab le .

7.

That A rticle  12, Section 12 of the Constitution of the 
S tate of F lorida  and Section 228.09, F lorida S tatu tes 
A nnotated, 1941 requ ire  ra c ia l  segreation  in Public 
Schools of F lorida. That these provisions of S tate  
Law  a re  being enforced by the defendan ts jo intly  de­
spite the fac t th a t they  violate the F ou rteen th  A m end­
m ent to the Constitution of the U nited States.

W herefore p laintiffs respectfu lly  p ray  that:

1. The Court advance th is cause on the docket and 
order a speedy hearing  of the application for in te r­
locutory injunction' and the application  for p e rm an en t 
injunction according to law, and th a t upon such h e a r­
ings:

2. The Court en ter its d ecla ra to ry  judgm ent de­
claring  th a t A rticle  12, Section 12 of the Constitution 
of the State of F lo rida  and Section 228.09, F lorida 
S ta tu tes  A nnotated; 1941 and th a t the segregation  of 
the infant p laintiffs because of th e ir race, violate the 
F o u rteen th  A m endm ent to the Constitution of the 
U nited S tates.

3. The Court issue in terlocu tory  and perm anen t in­
junctions o rdering  defendants to prom ptly p re sen t a 
p lan of desegregation  to th is Court which will ex­



6

peditiously deseg reg ate  the schools in  D ade County 
and forever re s tra in in g  and enjoining defendants and 
each of th em  from  th e re a f te r  requ iring  these  p lain­
tiffs and all o ther N egroes of Public  School age to 
a ttend  or not to a ttend  Public  Schools in D ade County 
because of race.

4. The Court allow plaintiffs their costs and such 
other relief as m ay  ap p ea r to the C ourt to be just,

And P la in tiffs  will ever pray ,
THURGOOD MARSHALL,

20 W est 40 S treet,
New York, New York.

EDW IN L. DAVIS,
941 N. W. Second Avenue,

M iam i, F lorida.
G. E. GRAVES, JR .,

802 N. W. Second Avenue,
M iam i, F lorida.

A ttorneys for P lain tiffs,
By G. E. GRAVES, JR .,

(G. E. G raves, J r .) ,
Of Counsel.



7

On S eptem ber 14, 1956 AM ENDM ENT TO AM END­
ED  COMPLAINT w as filed in the w ords and figures 
as follows:

(Title O m itted.)

Come now the plain tiffs by th e ir undersigned a t­
torneys and am end the am ended com plaint filed h e re ­
in by adding to the  sam e the following:

8.

Plain tiffs and those sim ilarly  s itua ted  suffer and 
a re  th rea tened  w ith irrep a ra b le  in ju ry  by the ac ts  
h ere in  com plained of. They have no plain, adequate  
or com plete rem ed y  to red re ss  these w rongs other 
th an  th is suit for an  injunction. Any other rem edy 
would be attended  by such u n certa in ties  and delays 
as to deny substan tia l relief, would involve m ultiplic­
ity  of suits, cause fu rth e r irrep a rab le  in ju ry  and oc­
casion dam age, vexation and inconvenience, not only 
to th e  p laintiffs and those sim ila rly  situated , but to 
defendants as governm ental agencies.

THURGOOD MARSHALL,
20 W est 40 Street,

New York, New York.

EDW IN L. DAVIS,
941 N. W. Second Avenue,

M iam i, F lorida.

G. E. GRAVES, JR.,
802 N. W. Second Avenue,

M iam i, F lorida.
A ttorneys for Plaintiffs*

By G. E. GRAVES, JR .,
(G. E. G raves, J r .) ,

Of Counsel.



8

C ertificate.

I hereby  certify  th a t a copy of the above and fore­
going am endm ent to the bill of com plain t w as m ailed 
to B oardm an & Bolles, A ttorneys for D efendants, 275 
N. W. Second S tree t, M iam i, F lo rida this . . .  day  of 
Septem ber, 1956.

G. E. GRAVES, JR .

On O ctober 3, 1956 MOTION TO DISMISS w as filed 
in the w ords and figures as follows:

(T itle O m itted.)

Come now the defendants by their undersigned  coun­
sel and move the Court to dism iss the am ended peti­
tion for decla ra to ry  judgm en t and equitable re lie f on 
the  following grounds:

1. The am ended petition fails to s ta te  a claim  on 
which relief can be g ranted .

2. The am ended petition fails to s ta te  a cause of 
action.

3. The am ended petition fails to s ta te  sufficient u lti­
m ate  fac ts  to show th a t injunctive re lief is necessary . 
F u rth er, it a ffirm atively  ap p ears  from  the am ended 
petition th a t th e re  is no need for the in junctive relief 
w hich the petitioners seek.

4. The am ended petition fails to allege sufficient 
u ltim ate  fac ts  to show the necessity  for the issuance 
of a d ec la ra to ry  decree.



9

5. The am ended petition fails to allege sufficient 
u ltim ate  fac ts  to show the ex istence of a ju stic iab le  
issue betw een the defendants and the petitioners or 
the c lass which the petitioners p u rp o rt to rep resen t.

6. The am ended petition fails to allege th a t the 
petitioners have exhausted  all of the adm in is tra tiv e  
rem ed ies availab le  to them .

7. The am ended petition is based on m ere  con­
clusions and con jectu re  on the p a rt of the petitioners, 
and does not allege sufficient u ltim ate  fac ts  to show 
the jurisd iction  of the F e d e ra l Court.

R espectfully  subm itted ,
BOARDMAN & BOLLES, 

A ttorneys for D efendants,
By JOHN S. LLOYD,

(John S. Lloyd),
Of Counsel.

275 N. W. 2 Street,
M iam i, F lorida.

I H ereby C ertify th a t a  copy of the foregoing Motion 
to D ism iss w as on the 3rd day of October, 1956, m ailed  
to the office of G. E. G raves, J r . ,  A ttorney for P la in ­
tiffs, 802 N. W. 2nd Avenue, M iam i, F lorida.

JOHN S. LLOYD,
(John S. Lloyd),

Of Counsel.



10

On D ecem ber 3, 1956 O RDER DISMISSING CAUSE 
WITHOUT PR E JU D IC E  w as filed in the w ords and 
figu res as follows:

U nited S tates D istric t Court, Southern D istrict of 
F lorida, M iam i Division.

Theodore Gibson as nex t friend  for Theodore Gibson, 
J r ., et al., P etitioners,

vs. No. 6978-M-Civil.
B oard of Public  Instruction  of D ade County, F lorida, 

a F lo rida  corporation, et al., D efendants.

This cause having com e on to be h eard  on the 
16th day of N ovem ber, 1956, upon' the D efendan ts’ 
M otion to D ism iss, and A lternative  Motion To Strike, 
filed on O ctober 3, 1956, and the Court having h eard  
a rg u m en t of counsel and having  g ran ted  counsel leave 
to file m em o ran d a  w ith the Court subsequent to the 
hearing, w hich m em oranda have been subm itted  and 
considered, the Court is of the opinion th a t th is cause 
should be dism issed without p re jud ice  for the follow­
ing reasons.

Section 2201 of Title 28, United S tates Code, e m ­
pow ers this Court to d ecla re  the righ ts and other 
legal re la tions of any in te rested  p a rty  seeking such 
d ecla ra tion  in a case of actual controversy . T hat this 
Court has ju risd iction  to en te rta in  such a decla ra to ry  
judgm ent suit p roperly  p resen ted  under the Civil 
R ights S ta tu tes, 42 U.S.C.§§. 1981 et seq., is unques- 
tin'able. B ruce v. Stilwell, 206 F. 2d 554 (5th Cir. 1953). 
But this Court, being a Court of law, can  proceed 
only in accordance  w ith the well-defined d ic ta tes  of



11

the s ta tu te  and com m on law  applicable to the pro- 
ceeding a t bar.

D ecla ra to ry  judgm ents can  be rendered  only in 
cases of actual controversy, and th is Court is not 
em pow ered to ren d er any advisory  opinions. Nor can 
this Court declare the righ ts and other legal re la ­
tions of individuals based upon an hypothetical state  
of fac ts. In the case of A labam a State  F edera tion  of 
Labor v. M cAdory, 325 U.S. 450 (1945), the United 
S ta tes  Suprem e Court s ta ted  a t page 461:

“The requ irem ents for a justiciab le case or con­
troversy  are  no less s tric t in a d ec la ra to ry  judgm ent 
proceeding th an  in any other type of suit. . . This 
Court is w ithout power to give advisory  opinions . . . 
I t  has long been its considered p rac tice  not to decide 
abstrac t, hypothetical or contingent questions. . . or 
to decide any constitu tional question in advance of 
the necessity  for its decision . . .  or to decide any 
constitu tional question except w ith reference to the 
p a rtic u la r  fac ts  to which it Is to be applied .”

See also Public Service Comm, of U tah v. W ycoff 
Co., 344 U.S. 237 (1952). and ^United Public W orkers 
of A m erica  (C.I.O.) v. M itchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947).

The P la in tiff Negro school children seek in this 
suit a declaration of their righ ts to attend  a non- 
segregated school In D ade County, F lorida. Nowhere 
in their A m ended P etition  ap p ears  any allegations 
th a t the Defendant school board  denied the P laintiffs 
adm ittance  to such a school nor do the Plain tiffs al­
lege th a t they ever applied for such adm ission. The 
P lain tiffs m ere ly  s ta te  in P a ra g ra p h  3: “ E ach  of the



12

infant p laintiffs seeks adm ission to the Public  Schools 
of D ade County, F lo rida  w ithout rac ia l segregation .”

Tim e-honored in the law  is the m axim  th a t “ from  
the fac ts  the law  a rise s .” W ithout a fac tu al situation 
upon w hich this Court can act, this Court does not 
have the power to proceed. The P la in tiffs  allege th a t 
they a re  not, attending in teg ra ted  schools but they 
now here allege th a t they have ever sought adm ission 
to such schools and w ere denied adm ission by the 
D efendants in violation of the P la in tiffs’ C onstitution­
al rights. The absence of this essen tial e lem ent of 
P la in tiffs ’ alleged cause of action divests th is Court 
of the power to proceed fu rth er in this proceeding.

Nor can  it be said  th a t the A ugust 15, 1955, s ta te ­
m ent of policy contained in P a ra g ra p h  5 is sufficient 
to vest this Court w ith jurisdiction. Before this Court 
can proceed under 42 U.S.C. §§. 1981 et seq., arid 28 
U..S.C. §. 2201, there m ust have been in fac t some 
deprivation  of P la in tiffs’ Constitutional and legal 
righ ts, privileges, or im m unities. The alleged s ta te ­
m ent of policy m ay  be characterized  as a th rea t to 
deprive the P lain tiffs of th e ir righ ts  but it does not 
constitute a  deprivation  as a m a tte r  of law. W hether 
or not the D efendants will follow the decision of the 
U nited States Suprem e Court in the case of Brown 
v. B oard of E ducation  of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) 
and 349 U.S. 294 (1955), can not yet be determ ined. 
But th is Court believes th a t the oath taken by each 
m em ber of the D efendant Board p u rsuan t to Section 
876.05. F lo rida  Statutes, 1955, to “ support the Con­
stitu tion of the U nited States and of the State of 
F lo rid a” w as not lightly sworn to by the D efendants 
w hen they took office.



13

The Suprem e Court c learly  defined the function of 
the D istric t Court in the Brown decision a t 349 U.S. 
294, 300 (1955), as a Court of law (when the school 
au thorities propose a p lan  as p a r t of litigation) to 
oversee the in tegration of the public schools and to 
strike  down segregation w here it is shown to exist 
after f irs t giving due consideration to the tim e and 
other e lem ents confronting the school au thorities. It 
is not for the Courts to m ake the policy of the school 
board  but to “consider the adequacy  of any plans the 
defendants m ay  propose to m eet these problem s and 
to e ffec tuate  a transition  to ,a rac ia lly  nondiscrim i- 
na to ry  school sy stem ” (Brown decision a t 349 U.S. 
301.)

There is presently  no ac t of the D efendants con­
stitu ting  any deprivation of any of the P la in tiffs’ 
righ ts before this Court nor has there  been any de­
segregation  p lan  subm itted  by the D efendants for this 
C ourt’s consideration. Only upon the p resen tation  of a 
justiciable cause can an adjudication of the re la tive 
righ ts  of parties  be m ade by th is Court. U ntil the 
p resen tation  of such a cause, th is  suit m ust stand 
dism issed w ithout prejud ice to the  P laintiffs. It is, 
therefore,

O rdered and Adjudged th a t the cause herein be and 
the sam e is hereby dism issed w ithout prejudice.

Done and O rdered in cham bers a t M iam i, F lorida, 
th is 29th day of N ovem ber, 1956.

EM ETT C. CHOATE,
United States D istric t Judge.



14

On D ecem ber 20, 1956 NOTICE OF A PPE A L  by 
P la in tiffs  w as filed in the w ords and figu res as fol­
lows:

United S ta tes D istric t Court, Southern D istric t of 
F lorida, M iam i Division.

Theodore Gibson, as next friend for Theodore Gibson, 
J r . :  A lbert Reddick, as next friend for Cleo Red­
dick: J . O. Brown, as next friend for J. O. Brown, 
J r .:  J am e s  Lenton P a rk e r, as next friend  for 
T eresa P a rk e r: R ichard  Powell, as next friend  
for R ichard  Powell, J r .:  P rince H epburn, as next 
friend  for Scheren H epburn, Petitioners,

vs.
B oard of Public  Instruction  of Dade County, F lorida, 

a F lorida C orporation; W. R. Thom as, as Super­
in tenden t of the Public Schools of Dade County, 
F lo rida; C. R aym ond Van Dusen, E. L. Alsworth, 
R obert S. B utler, Helen Vosloh, and Anna B ren­
ner M eyers, as m em bers of the B oard  of Public 
Instruction  of D ade County, F lo rida , D efendants.

Civil Action No. 6978-M.

Notice is hereby given th a t Theodore Gibson, as 
next friend for Theodore Gibson, J r .;  A lbert Reddick, 
as next friend  for Cleo Reddick; J . O. Brown, as 
next friend for J . O. Brown, J r .;  Jam e s  Lenton P a rk ­
er, as nex t friend  for Teresa P a rk e r; R ichard  Powell, 
as next friend for R ichard  Powell, J r .;  and P rince 
H epburn, as next friend  for Scheren H epburn, P e ti­
tioners in the above captioned cause, hereby  appeal 
to the United S tates C ircuit Court of A ppeal for the 
F ifth  C ircuit, from  the o rder dism issing the P etition ­



15

e rs ’ am ended complaint, en te red  in this action on No­
vem ber 29th, 1956.

G. E. GRAVES, JR .,
(G. E . G raves, J r .) ,

Of Counsel for Petitioners. 
802 N. W. Second Avenue,

M iam i, F lorida.

I hereby  certify  th a t I m ailed  a copy of the above 
Notice of A ppeal to B oardm an & Bolles, A ttorneys for 
D efendants, 275 N. W. Second Street, M iam i, F lorida 
th is 20 day of Decem ber, 1956.

G. E. GRAVES, JR .,
(G. E. G raves, J r .) .

On D ecem ber 20, 1956 ELECTION TO STAND ON 
AM ENDED COMPLAINT w as filed in the w ords and 
figures as follows:

(Title O m itted.)

Come now the Petitioners in the above styled cause, 
and now elect to s tand  on the m erits  of the am ended 
com plaint filed herein.

G. E. GRAVES, JR .,
(G. E. G raves, J r .) ,

Of Counsel for Petitioners. 
802 N. W. Second Avenue,

Miami, F lorida.



16

C ertificate.

I hereby certify  th a t I m ailed  a copy of the above 
election to s tand  on am ended com plaint to B oardm an 
& Bolles, A ttorneys for D efendants, 275 N. W. Second 
Street, M iam i, F lorida, this 20th day of D ecem ber, 
1956.

G. E. GRAVES, JR .,
(G. E. G raves, J r .) .

On D ecem ber 28, 1956 STATEM ENT OF POINTS 
ON A PPE A L  w as filed in the words and figures as 
follows:

(Title O m itted.)

1 .

T hat the am ended com plain t does set forth  a  ju s­
tic iab le  controversy.

2.

That the P e titioners  have no ad m in is tra tiv e  rem ­
edy, which if followed, would cu lm inate  in' th e ir ob­
ta in ing  the re lief w hich they  a re  entitled  in th is cause.

3.

T hat ra c ia l seg regation  in public education is con­
tra ry  to the E q u a l P ro tection  of the Law s Clause of 
the F ourteen th  A m endm ent to the Constitution of the 
United S tates.



17

4.

T hat it is p resently  incum bent upon the D efendant 
B oard of Public Instruction  to p resen t a  good fa ith  
p lan  and effort to im plem ent the decision of the United 
S tates Suprem e Court in Brown vs. B oard of E d u ca ­
tion of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294.

G. E. GRAVES, JR .,
(G. E. G raves, J r .) ,

Of Counsel for Petitioners. 
802 N. W. Second Avenue,

M iam i, F lorida.

I H ereby Certify th a t a copy of the above S ta te­
m en t w as m ailed  th is 28 day of D ecem ber, 1956 to 
B oardm an & Bolles, A ttorneys for D efendants, 275 
N. W. Second S treet, M iam i, F lorida.

G. E. GRAVES, JR .,
(G. E. G raves, J r .) .

On D ecem ber 28, 1956 DESIGNATION OF PO R ­
TIONS OF RECORD ON A PPEA L w as filed in the 
words and figu res as follows:

(Title Omitted.)

To: The C lerk of the Above Styled Court:
You will p lease p rep are , certify  and subm it as the 

record  on appeal to the U nited S tates C ircuit Court 
of A ppeal for the F ifth  Circuit, the following docu­
m ents:



18

1. The A m ended P etition  for D eclara to ry  Ju d g ­
m ent and E qu itab le  Relief.

2. The A m endm ent to the  A m ended P etition  for 
D eclara to ry  Ju d g m en t and E qu itab le  Relief.

3. The Motion to D ism iss the A m ended P etition  as 
am ended.

4. The O rder D ism issing C ause W ithout P rejudice.
G. E. GRAVES, JR .,

(G. E. G raves, J r .) ,
Of Counsel for P lain tiffs.

802; N. W. Second Avenue,
M iam i, F lorida.

I H ereby C ertify th a t a  copy of the above and fore­
going D esignation of Portions of R ecord for A ppeal 
w as m ailed  th is day of D ecem ber, 1956 to B oardm an 
& Bolles, A ttorneys for D efendants, 275 N. W. Second 
Street, M iam i, F lorida.

G. E. GRAVES, JR .,
(G. E. G raves, J r .) .



19

U nited S ta tes  of A m erica,
Southern D istric t of F lorida, ss.

I, JULIAN A. BLAKE, C lerk of the United S ta tes  
D istric t Court, in and  for the  Southern D is tric t of 
F lorida  and as the  legal custodian of the records 
and files of said Court, do hereby  certify  th a t the 
foregoing pages num bered  from  1 to 16, inclusive, 
contain  a  tru e , full and com plete copy of all such 
portions of the record, proceedings, and evidence in 
cause sty led  Theodore G ibson as nex t friend  for Theo­
dore R. Gibson, J r .;  A lbert R eddick as  next friend  
for Cleo R eddick; J . O. Brown, as n ex t friend  for 
J . O. Brown, J r .;  J am e s  Lenton P a rk e r, as next 
friend  for T heresa  P a rk e r; R ich ard  Powell, as nex t 
friend  for R ichard  Powell, J r .; P rince  Hepburn, as 
nex t friend for Scheren H epburn  versus B oard of P u b ­
lic In struc tion  of D ade County, F lorida, a  F lorida 
corporation; W. R. Thom as, as Superintendent of the  
Public  Schools of D ade County, F lo rida; C. R aym ond 
Van D usen, E. L. A lsw orth, R obert S. B utler, Helen 
Vosloh, and  A nna B renner M eyers, as m em b ers  of 
the B oard of Public  Instruction  of D ade County, F lor­
ida, num ber 6978-Miami-Civil, as ap p ea r upon the 
records and files of m y office th a t have  been desig­
na ted  by w ritten  d irections of the appellan t to be in­
cluded in th is reco rd  on appeal.

In  W itness W hereof, I have hereunto set m y hand 
and affixed the official seal of said  Court a t M iam i, 
F lorida, on th is the 9th day of Jan u a ry , A. D. 1957.

JULIAN A. BLAKE,
As C lerk of the  U nited S ta tes 

D is tric t Court in and for the 
Southern D istric t of F lorida, 

By EARL F. SPRIGG,
(Seal) Chief D eputy Clerk.



I .  S. UPTON PRINTING CO., NEW ORLEANS — 26741