Jackson v. Marvell School District Motion to Recall and Amend Mandate

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 

NOS. 19746 & 19797

CEINERS JACKSON, et al..
Appellants,

vs.
MARVELL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 22, et al..

Appellees.

EARLIS JACKSON, et al..
Appellants,

vs.
MARVELL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 22, et al.,

Appellees.

MOTION TO RECALL AND AMEND MANDATE______

Appellants, by their undersigned counsel, respectfully move 
that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1651 and the Federal Rules of Appellate 
procedure, this court recall its mandate in this matter issued 
October 2, 1969 and amend such mandate to direct that appellees 
be required to implement a unitary school system at once; and in 
support thereof would show this Court:



1. These class actions to desegregate the public schools 
of Marvell, Arkansas were commenced on August 17, 1966 and 
July 10, 1967.

2. Subsequent to the decision of the United States Supreme 
Court in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 
U.S. 430 (1968) appellants (plaintiffs below) filed a Motion for 
Further Relief seeking judicial disapproval of free choice as a 
constitutional means of pupil assignment in Marvell. On 
August 29, 1968 the district court entered an order holding that 
appellees were required to submit a plan for the operation of the 
public schools of Marvell not based upon freedom of choice.

3. However, on June 12, 1969 after further proceedings the 
district court held that appellees could constitutionally continue 
to use free choice. That ruling was reversed by this court per 
curiam on October 2, 1969.

4. This court directed on October 2nd that its mandate issue 
immediately requiring effectuation of » unitary school system in 
the Marvell School District pursuant to a plan which would 
"eliminate all vestiges of the freedom of choice provisions and 
shall be fully implemented and become effective no later than 
January 19, 1970." (The district court has subsequently entered a 
letter order directing submission of a plan by December 1, 1969 to 
become effective January 19, 1970.)

2



5. On October 29, 1969 the United States Supreme Court 
ruled per curiam in Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education,
_____ U.S. _____ that unitary school systems are to be achieved
immediately and without any further delay and that federal courts 
should order complete and immediate relief which must be 
implemented at once pending resolution of objections and 
amendments to the plan of desegregation including review by the 
Courta of Appeals. (A copy of the opinion is attached hereto as 
Exhibit A) .

6. This litigation has been pending for three years but 
appellants and the class have yet to enjoy the benefits of 
scholastic instruction in a unitary school system

7. There are but two schools in the Marvell School District 
and the district court itself has held that the "best" desegregati 
plan for this district was a pairing plan as described at the 
trial by appellants' expert witness,

8. This court is required by the Supreme Court decision in 
Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education to require the 
immediate effectuation of a unitary school system in Marvell.

WHEREFORE, appellants respectfully pray that this court 
recall its mandate and amend the same to require immediate 
implementation of a pairing plan to desegregate the Marvell public 
schools now without further delay until the commencement of the 
second semester of the 1969-70 school year.

Respectfully submitted,
JACK GREENBERG
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN JOHN W. WALKER10 Columbus Circle 1820 W. 13th StreetNew York, T j t n ? York 10019 Little Rock, Arkansas 72202

Attorneys for Appellants



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on the 31st day of October 1969 
I served one copy each of the Motion to Recall and Amend Mandate 
upon counsel for appellees, Robert V. Light, Esquire, 1100 Boyle 
Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 and Charles B. Roscopf, 
Esquire, 417 Rightor Street, Helena, Arkansas 72342, by United 
States mail, first class postage prepaid.