Memorandum in Support of Motion to Defer Further Proceedings

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al. , 

Plaintiffs, 

v.

WILLIAM G . MILLIKEN, et al., 

Defendants

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, 
LOCAL #231, AMERICAN FEDERATION 
OF TEACHERS , AFL-CIO,

Defendant- 
Intervener

c*. k .e .

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al..

Defendants- 
Intervenor.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

mpj

MEMORANDUM IN ' 
SU??C5T~CF^0TI0N 
TO DEFER FURTHER 
PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 35257

It is well settled that a court has inherent pone 

to stay proceedings in control of its docket, after hai­

ring the competing interests which will be affected. 

Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 243 (1936); 

Delinger v. Mitchell, 442 F.2d 782 (C.A. D.C. 1971);

seas, 307 F.2e 76 (5th Cir., 1962); Kcrtro 

Corn, v. Prindie, 105 F. Sup?. 460 (D.C. N.Y. 1952).

Among such competing interests is the orderly 

course of justice measured in terms of simplifying issue 

md questions of law which could be expected to 

result from a stay in proceedings. CMAX. Inc. v. Hall, 

300 F .2d 265 (9th Cir., 1962).

the

Landis V. ]

Deling*rr v

eabOi.1 V. i

Corn. v. P:

Amo:

course of ,

proof, and

result - .£.



several
# •

Consistent with the above principle,

Courts of Appeal recently postponed further action in 

school desegregation cases pending a decision by the

Supreme

(Occurr

Ur. ied

Court in Keyes v. School District Ko. 1, Denver, 

ing on March 2, 1972, in Johnson v. San Francisco 

School District, 9th Cir.; on February 7, 1972

xn ;neros v. Cornu 'hristi Independentr Q V i'- iiv Dis-

tract, 5th Cir.; and on January 14, 1972, in United 

States v. Midland Independent School District, 5th Cir.)

These actions are reminiscent of the Fifth Circuit's

announcement of October 1, 1970, postponing all decisions 

in pupil assignment and related cases until the Supreme

Court announced its decision in Swann v. Cnarlotte-

Meeklanburg.

Conclusion

The logic of delaying court action when a higher 

court's decision may affect the outcome of the pending 

case ought to be extended here to the circumstance of 

Congressional consideration of the President's proposed 

legislation.

Respectfully submitted,

if] Kn '? \J •j-yUnurtn.' c>. V
DAVID L. NORMAN 
Assistant Attorney General