Sample Motion for Further Relief

    Sample Motion to Implement Green 

MOTION FOR FURTHER RELIEF 
  

Plaintiffs hereby move this Court for an order requiring 

that defendants submit a new plan for the desegregation of 

County schools. 
  

1. On , 1967, this Court entered an order 
  

requiring that defendants desegregate their system pursuant to a 

plan, commonly known as freedom of choice, under which students 

assign themselves subject only to overcrowding. 

2. Although this is the year in which students have 

been permitted to assign themselves, during the March 1968 choice 

period, only per cent of the Negro students in 
  

the county have chosen to attend previously all-white schools; as 

in previous years, no white students have chosen to attend 

previously all-Negro schools. Plaintiffs allege that freedom of 

choice has thus far failed and will continue to fail to effectuate 

the requisite transition to a unitary nonracial system. 

[This paragraph should be eliminated if the figures are not 
available.] 

3. On May 27, 1968, the United States Supreme Court decreed 

that freedom of choice plans are constitutionally unacceptable 

where "there are reasonably available other ways, such for 

 



  

illustration as zoning, promising speedier and more effective 

conversion to a unitary nonracial school system." Green v. County 

School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 36 U.S.L.Week 4476, 
  

4479. 

4, Plaintiffs accordingly submit that defendants may not 

assign students, for the 1968-69 school year, pursuant to their 

choices without first demonstrating to this Court, by evidence, 

that other methods of pupil assignment, as, for example, by 

unitary nonracial zones or pairing, or both, would not produce 

greater desegregation. In any event, plaintiffs allege upon 

information and belief that the assignment of students upon the 

basis of a unitary system of nonracial geographical attendance 

zones or upon the basis of a plan for the consolidation of grades 

or schools, or both, would more speedily and effectively effectuate 

a unitary nonracial system, 

5. If plaintiffs and the Court are to be able intelligently 

to appraise the new plan, defendants must be required to define 

what criteria were used in determining geographic zones or in 

pairing schools and to furnish appropriate source materials 

indicating the locations of the various schools and the residences 

of the pupils in the system, See Davis v. Board of School 

Commissioners of Mobile County, No. 25175, 5th Cir., decided 
  

March 12, 1968, and in particular Section IV of the decree 

appended thegeto, 

 



  

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court, in view of the 

short time remaining before the 1968-69 school year, enter a 

decree directing: 

I. That defendants immediately conduct a survey of their 

school system and report to the court and the plaintiffs the 

result of such survey. The report shall include: 

a. A map of the district showing each school (by type: 

elementary, junior or senior high) and the residence, by 

race and grade, of each student in the system during the 

1967-68 school year: 

b. A separate description of each school showing: 

type of school, grades taught, whether accredited, acreage, 

number of regular and portable classrooms (excluding 

gymnasiums, laboratories and other specialized facilities): 

c. A list of all sites currently owned or which 

the district plans to acquire, their sizes and intended use: 

d. For each building now under construction or planned: 

location, date construction will commence, expected date of 

opening, type of school intended, anticipated capacity, 

number of voaaLEE and portable classrooms. 

II. That defendants submit and serve upon the plaintiffs and 

the court, no later than July 1, 1968: 

a. The report of the survey described in I, above; 

 



  

b. A plan for the assignment of all students for 

the 1968-69 school year upon the basis of a unitary system 

of nonracial geographic attendance zones or a plan for the 

consolidation of grades or schools, or both; 

c. A description of the criteria used in determining 

zone lines or for consolidating schools; 

d. A report to be appended to the plan showing the 

expected enrollment for the 1968-69 school year by grade 

and by race, for each school. 

III. That plaintiffs be allowed 15 days in which to file 

objections or amendments to the plan. 

IV. Scheduling a hearing on the proposed plan and objections 

or amendments no later than July 31, 1968. 

Respectfully submitted,