Draft Motion to Join Parties and Brief in Support of Motion

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

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

et al.

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

CIVIL ACTION NO 

35257

MOTION TO JOIN PARTIES

NOW COME Plaintiffs, Ronald Bradley, et al., and move 

this Honorable Court to join the following school districts 

and their superintendents as parties in this cause; in the

first instance as necessary to further planning and there­

after, insofar as necessary, in implementing an effective 

plan for desegregation of the Detroit Public Schools:



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et alM  )

Plaintiffs, )
)

v. )
)

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., )

Defendants, )
) CIVIL ACTION NO:

and )
) 35257

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

)
Defendant-Intervenor )

)
and )

)
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et ai., )

Defendants-Intervenor )
)

et al. )
~ ~ ~  _____________________________________;_______________________________________________________________________________________)

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO JOIN PARTIES

1. ’’Delay is no longer tolerable” in fashioning and

implementing an effective plan for the desegregation of the 

Detroit Public Schools. Bradley v. Milliken, F.2d

(Nos. 72-1809, 72-1814, Dec. 8, 1972) Slip op. 71.

2. ’’The District Court is not confined to the boundary

lines of Detroit in fashioning equitable relief....In the 

instant case the only feasible desegregation plan involves 

the crossing of the boundary lines between the Detroit 

School District and adjacent or nearby school districts for 

the Limited purpose of providing an effective desegregation 

plan.” Bradley v. Milliken, F .2d (Nos. 72-1809,

72-1814, Dec. 8, 1972) Slip op. 64-67.

3. ”In fashioning an equitable remedy in this 

case, It will not be necessary for the District Court to

find discriminatory conduct on the part of each school district, 

either dejure or defacto, as a prerequisite to including such 

district in a desegregation area to be defined by the Court’s

decree.” Bradley v. Milliken, F.2d____ ^(Nos. 72-1809 ,



72-1814, Dec. 8, 1972) Slip op. 68.

4. "School districts which are to be affected by

the decree of the District Court are necessary parties 

under Rule 19,” F.R.Civ.P. Bradley v. Milllken, F.2d

(Nos. 72-1809, 72-1814, Dec. 8, 1972) Slip op. 68. See also 

Rule 21, F.R.Civ.P.

5. "The panel appointed by the District Court [and 

charged with the duty of preparing interim and final plans 

of desegregation] is authorized to proceed with its studies 

and planning under the direction of the District Court.”

Bradley v. Milliken, F.2d (Nos. 72-1809, 72-1814,

Dec. 8, 1972) Slip op. 69.

6. The assistance, including but not limited to the 

provision of data and reasonable staff assistance as requested 

by the panel, of all local and intermediate school districts 

is necessary to permit full planning by the panel for a 

desegregation plan to proceed. Order for Development of

Plan of Desegregation, June 14, 1972, Part I.C., aff'd in 

pertinent part, Bradley v. Milliken, F.2d (Nos. 72-1809

72-1814, Dec. 8, 1972) Slip op. 69.

7. Decisions on the issue as to whether certain 

parties are necessary in order to achieve complete relief 

between present parties are by nature made on a hypothetical 

basis. For a Court to await until all the evidence is 

adduced to determine the need for joinder of additional 

parties would create a risk of unjustifiable delay in the 

resolution of the controversy and a waste of the efforts of 

all involved. Bradley v. Sch. Bd. of the City of Richmond,

51 F.R.D. 139 (E.D.Va. 1970).

8. Provision for an opportunity for each defendant 

to be heard on all pertinent issues and the determination 

of whether and in what respect each local and intermediate 

school district is necessary to the implementation of 

interim and/or final plan of desegregation for the Detroit 

Public Schools, can best await consideration in the context



of complete plans, alternatives, objections, modifications and 

such other pleadings as may be submitted by the parties and 

the panel hereafter* (See Motion, Brief, and Proposed 

Order to Require the Panel to Proceed with its Studies 

and Planning)*

Respectfully submitted,

Hours R* LUCAS 
WILLIAM E. CALDWELL

Ratner, Sugermon & Lucas 
525 Commerce Title Bldg. 
Memphis, Tennessee

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

PAUL R. DIMOND 
906 Rose Avenue 
Ann Arbor, Michigan 

J. HAROLD FLANNERY 
ROBERT PRESSMAN

Center for Law & Education 
61 Kirkland Street 
Cambridge, Massachusetts

E. WINTHER McCROOM 
3^25 Woodburn Avenue 
Cincinnati, Ohio

JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 

10. Columbus Circle 
New York, New York