Motion of Defendant Detroit Board of Education for Partial Entry of Judgment

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

:i

-

H
ii

i
i

. )RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )
)Plaintiffs, )

v. )
)

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., - )
)

Defendants, )
and )

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

‘ )
Defendant-Intervenor, )

and )
)

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al., )
. )

Defendants-Intervenor. )
__________________________________________ )

Civil Action 
No. 35257

MOTION
OF DEFENDANT DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION 

FOR PARTIAL ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

NOW COMES the Board of Education of the City of Detroit,

a school district of the first class, by its attorneys, RILEY
ij; AND ROUMELL, Defendants m  the above-entitled cause and movesi| this honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal
! . .j Rules of Civil Procedures to enter a final judgment on the claim
!
i of Plaintiffs that the Defendant Detroit Board and State Defen-
I

j dants have pursued and are presently pursuing a policy, custom,II
practice and usage of operating, managing and controlling the 

said public schools in a manner that has the purpose of perpetu­

ating a segregated public school system, and for its Motion says 

as follows i

(1) Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint filed on August



*

18, 1970 that the Defendant Detroit Board and the State Defendants 

herein have operated the school system of the City of Detroit in 

a.manner violative of the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs.

(2) This Court by its Ruling on the Issue of Segregation 

issued on September 27, 1971, found the existence of a de jure 

segregated public school system in the City of Detroit.

(3) In hearings subsequently held on the appropriateness 

of Detroit-Only and metropolitan plans for relief, this Court 

has nou considered, and has indicated in colloquy with counsel 

that it will not further consider the issue of whether de jure 

segregation existed so as to support equitable relief.

(4) The Court has,in its ruling of June 14, 1972, directed

a panel, now modified to include 11 members to prepare a plan

of pupil assignment ana has directed the State Superintendent of

Public Instruction to prepare plans for the governance, finance

and contractual operation of a plan of pupil assignment, but has
i! . . .  ,jj not at this time finally ruled upon or ordered the implementation
I j  * * .
Jj °f a plan of pupil assignment, faculty assignment, governance
J J  _ '
ji or finance and with regard to the desegregation area, has
|
j| solicited the advice of the Panel with regard to the inclusion or 
) t 
!exclusion of the Utica School District.It ■

, | ••
jj (5) ihere is no just reason for delay in the entry of
jj . „ .ji judgment on the issue of the existence of de jure segregation.
H 'j

WHEREFORE, Defendant Detroit Board prays that the Court
ij .
j enter a judgment with regard to the issue of school desegregation

- 2 -



#

pursuant to its previous ruling of September 27, 1971.

Respectfully submitted,

RILEY AND ROUMELL

George t7 Roumell, Jr

And: 'A
Louis D. Beer

Attorneys for Defendant Detroit 
Board of Education

• 720 Ford Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226 
Telephone: 962-8255

Date: ? ,19 72.

- 3 -