Motion for Leave to Proceed on the Original Papers and to Dispense Printed Appendix; Petition for Reconsideration

    •  •

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS 
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

NO.

RONALD BRADLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,
DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL 231 
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

Defendant-Intervenor

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED 
ON THE ORIGINAL PAPERS AND TO DISPENSE WITH 
____________ PRINTED APPENDIX ___________

Plaintiffs-appellants, by their undersigned 
counsel, respectfully pray, pursuant to Rule 30(f) of the 
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, that the disposition 
of their Motion for Summary Reversal or in the Alternative 
for Injunction Pending Appeal proceed on the basis of trans­
cripts from the three hearings conducted below in this 
cause on August 27* 28, September 1, 1970* November 4, 1970 
and November 18, 19 and 25* 1970* and four copies of the 
typewritten Brief and Brief Appendix. The copies of the 
Brief and Brief Appendix accompany this motion and the 
transcripts have been forwarded to this Court.

• -j ) •

J i , ■
./r

i. ' J _ • [ .
i



»
r

Plaintiffs-appellants further respectfully pray 
that this Court dispense with the requirement of a printed 
Appendix pursuant to Rule 30(f), F.R.A.P.. As set forth 
more fully in the Motion for Summary Reversal or in the 
Alternative for Injunction Pending Appeal, the urgency of 
an immediate determination of this cause does not permit

K

the delay necessary to comply with ordinary appellate
procedures. See Bradley v. Mllllken, No. _____ (6th Cir.,
September 11, 1970)(Order of Chief Judge Phillips).

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs-appellants respectfully 
pray that an Order be entered granting them leave to proceed 
upon the original papers herein and dispensing with the 
requirement of a printed Appendix, four typewritten copies 
of the Brief for Appellants reproduced by xerographic or 
similar process to be filed with the Court.

Respectfully submitted,

E. WINTHER McCROOM 
3245 Woodburn Avenue 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45207

JACK GREENBERG 
JAMES M. NABRIT, III 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Of Counsel:
J. HAROLD FLANNERY 
PAUL DIMOND

Center for Law & Education 
Harvard University 
Cambridge, Massachusetts

rouisii'.' Lucas-----------
WILLIAM E. CALDWELL

Ratner, Sugarmon & Lucas 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

NATHANIEL JONES
General Counsel, N.A.A.C.P.
179° BroadwayNew York, New York 10019

BRUCE MILLER and 
LUCILLE WATTS, Attorneys for 
, Legal Redress Committee 
N.A.A.C.P., Detroit Branch 
3426 Cadillac Towers 
Detroit, Michigan

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants
- 2 -



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing 

Motion has been served on counsel for the defendants, Mr. 
George E. Bushnell, Jr., 2500 Detroit Bank & Trust Building, 
Detroit, Michigan 48226, Mr. Theodore Sachs, 1000 Farmer, 
Detroit, Michigan, and Mr. Eugene Krasicky, Assistant Attorney 
General, Seven Story Office Building, 525 West Ottawa Street, 
Lansing, Michigan 48913, by United States airmail, postage 
prepaid, this 18th day of December, 1970.

. Lucas



•  •

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

NO. 21036

RONALD BRADLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,
DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL 231 
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

Defendant-Intervenor.

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Appellants have this day received the order of this Court 
dated December 22, 1970 wherein it is stated that the Brief of 
Appellants "shall be filed not later than January 13, 1971 and 
the Brief of Appellees not later than February 3, 1971."

The Brief of Appellants is already in the hands of this 
Court, having been filed and so captioned, "Brief For Appellants" 
on December 17, 1970, together with the Motion for Summary 
Reversal. Page 1 in the Preliminary Statement entitled, "Brief

4For Appellants" states in its first sentence, "Appellants file 
this brief both as their submission in chief to this Court on the 
pending appeal and also in support of their motion ... ". The



#  •

purpose of filing the brief simultaneously with the motion was 
to avoid any delay. Again the purpose of filing with the original 
panel was because of their familiarity with the record and to 
avoid further delay in consideration. Of course, plaintiffs' brief 
was also served on the appellees at the time of filing with the 
Court. Under Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the 
brief of appellees is due (computing from December 17, 1970, the 
date of filing of appellants' brief) on January 16, 1971. This 
Court's order of December 22, 1970 extends that time until 
February 3, 1971. Plaintiffs respectfully submit that such delay 
is contrary to the rule enunciated by the United States Supreme 
Court in Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 
(1969), Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Bd., 396 U.S. 226 
(1969) , 396 U.S. 290 (1970)-.

This Court's order of December 22, 1970 also sets the matter 
down for hearing’on Tuesday, February 9, 1971. The entire thrust 
of the motion for summary reversal, this appeal, and the brief on 
the merits filed by plaintiffs, is an attack on the unconstitutional 
delay in the desegregation of Detroit schools permitted by the
District Court. As this Court noted in Bradley v. Milliken, ___
F.2d , Oct. 13, 1970, "The Detroit public schools opened for 
the 1970-71 school term on September 8th, the day of the hearing 
before the Chief Judge in Nashville", (slip op. p. 8, 9, Oct. 13, 
1970) . The second semester in the Detroit school system begins 
on February 1, 1971. The semester break was considered by 
Superintendent Drachler in his testimony and affidavit to this

2



Court and indeed in oral argument addressed to this Court by 
counsel at the earlier hearing to be the preferable time for

'ivi*
,■ I YV

»•*. : ’i  ■ V

.'A
.■■■" . 'v r

V > ;v,
. ' (' V-

>, V.'f'.f'V - ‘-j.1?

change in pupil assignments rather than during the middle of a . 
school semester. This Court's delay, perhaps occasioned by a 
lack of clarity as to whether or not appellants had filed their 
brief on the merits, of a hearing on plaintiffs' arguments for 
implementation of a constitutional plan at the start of the second 
semester until February 9, 1971, is effectively a denial of consti-*

• . ... * » , Ii* V: 1 .. i’-‘t -'4 fa/: »•*tutional rights. This Court in Kelly v. Metropolitan County Bd,

W& {
, v »•.

. \ - i t; t *

of Educ. of Nashville and Davidson Co., Tenn., No. 20741, December
} ■ •»t, »• V \Y

.-•<!« i ■'

^ .Vv1/ • ‘:l , *ri
' W i i - i . j r * t

• V i . M # . .  ■

-• ■ ■ •VT'-.tv

• ; .v
1 ‘k. ■' *• j

' /: \\

; <• • vv

!r

18, 1970, detailed at length the constitutional requirement for 
expedited procedures where a constitutional violation has been 
determined. Such a violation has been determined by this Court 
with respect to Section 12 of Act 48 and its effects. As the
Court in Kelly stated, "The rights of school children to schooling ; \:

A?'4 A
under nondiscrimiriatory and constitutional conditions cannot be 
recaptured for any school semester lived under discriminatory 
practices. Nor can any court thereafter devise an effective 
remedial measure." (slip op. p. 11). Plaintiffs respectfully 
submit that as in Nashville,

•* ■' ' (<-*'> ‘ \ r** ^ W t'■■ i- ' " V !.V. i
: "  w  j  <,•

.,-; i  • -  , ,S .  “I
-.i : ■[ • ' •

/ - j . ;  >-i.,■k. i . 1
f  •, . . L'-

. uf.■>: - ... ..
" '.Jt- ■• r ( ) -  ■

' ■ > V* ■ iC- I

"The danger of denying justice by delay" in this 
case is as clear as it was in Alexander, supra; 
Green, supra? and Carter, supra (siip op. p7  12).

WV *'
v'.l ,

V

This Court required an expeditious time schedule for deter- 
mination of relief and implementation, requiring "the time schedule 

* for consideration and implementation of this order should, of 
course, meet the 'maximum* standards set forth by the Supreme

yf.,h"S "i}
t ‘

C-

/ 4' 4
• j V '■

■■A ,
v j’; ?.. oi f ?|s*

. •* 1 • i-

■
r/



#

Court in the second Carter case (Carter v. West Feliciana Parish 
School Bd., 396 U.S. 290, 293 (1970))(slip op. p. 13)."

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court 
further consider the pending motions and the date for oral argument 
on the merits in light of the filing on December 17, 1970 by the 
plaintiffs of their brief on the merits in this cause, the service 
of said brief upon appellees, and the commencement of the second 
semester of school in the City of Detroit on February 1, 1971, 
and thereupon require the submission of the response of the 
appellees no later than the time permitted to them by Rule 31 of 
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure or at such earlier date 
as the Court may require^ f* *he implementation of relief set forth 
in Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Bd., 396 U.S. 226 at
228 (1969) and otherwise advance the hearing on the merits in

*order that relief may be accorded plaintiffs at the start of the 
second semester on February 1, 1971.

Respectfully submitted

LOUIS R. LUCAS
E. WINTHER McCROOM 

3245 Woodburn Avenue 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45207

V.

WILLIAM E. CALDWELL
Ratner, Sugarmon & Lucas 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

JACK GREENBERG 
JAMES M. NABRIT, III

NATHANIEL JONES
General Counsel, N.A.A.C.P
1790 Broadway
New York, New York 10019

Of Counsel: BRUCE MILLER and

PAUL DIMOND
Center for Law & Educ. 
Harvard University 
Cambridge, Massachusetts

J. HAROLD FLANNERY
LUCILLE WATTS, Attorneys for 

Legal Redress Committee 
N.A.A.C.P., Detroit Branch 
3426 Cadillac Towers 
Detroit, Michigan

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants
4



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Petition 
For Reconsideration has been served on counsel for the defendants, 
Mr. George E. Bushnell, Jr., 2500 Detroit Bank & Trust Building, 
Detroit, Michigan 48226, Mr. Theodore Sachs, 1000 Farmer, Detroit, 
Michigan, and Mr. Eugene Krasicky, Assistant Attorney General, 
Seven Story Office Building, 525 West Ottawa Street, Lansing, 
Michigan 48913, by United States airmail, postage prepaid, this 
24th day of December, 1970.

Louis R. Lucas

5