Amended Complaint to Conform to Evidence with Cover Letter (Draft)

    /
MARVIN L. RATNER 

R. B. SUGARMON, JR. 

LOUIS R. LUCAS 

IRVIN M. SALKY 

WALTER L. BAILEY, JR. 

JAMES T. ALLISON

MICHAEL B. KAY 

WILLIAM E. CALDWELL 

C. ANTHONY JOHNSON 

ELIJAH NOEL, JR.

R A T N E R ,  S U G A R M O N  & L U C A S
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SUITE 525

COMMERCE TITLE BUILDING

M E M P H I S ,  T E N N E S S E E  3 8 1 0 3

August 3, 1973

PHONE (901) 5 2 5 -8 6 0 1

MEMO TO: NATHANIEL JONES
PAUL DIMOND 
J. H. FLANNERY 
JACK GREENBERG 
JAMES NABRIT 
NORMAN CHACHKIN 
ELLIOTT HALL «,

%FROM: LOUIS R. LUCAS IV

RE: PLEADINGS ON REMAND IN BRADLEY V. MILLIKEN
Gentlemen: - -

V ?

We have filed today a Motion to Require Sub­
mission of Proposals to Legislature and Memorandum in 
support thereof and a Motion to Join and Substitute 
Parties, and Memorandum in support thereof. I am at­
taching herewith the major additional filing which I 
have in what I hope is final form. It is basically 
Paul's draft with some amendments. I would like to be 
substantially prepared to file before the conference 
date set by the Court of August 15, 1973. An early and 
telephonic response, unless your changes are "major," 
would be appreciated. In the event you have major 
changes, I would appreciate an immediate draft which should also be circulated by you.

I will send you under separate cover the motion 
to restart the panel, and to set the timetable which I 
hope would also be ready for disposition with the Court 
on August 15.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)RONALD BRADLEY, et al. , )
)Plaintiffs, )
)vs. )
)WILLIM G. MILLIKEN, )
)Defendants, )
)and )
)DENISE MAGDOWSKI, )
)Defendants-Intervenors, )
)and )
)ALLEN PARK, et al., )
)Defendants-Intervenors, )
)and )

' )KERRY GREEN, et al., )
)Defendants-Intervenors, )

„ )and )
)WAYNE COUNTY INTERMEDIATE )

SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., * )
)Added Defendants. )

_________________  )

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 35257

AMENDED COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO EVIDENCE

I. Prior Proceedings 1

1. Pertinent prior proceedings and decisions 
in this cause in the Court of Appeals are set forth in 
Bradley v. Milliken, 433 F.2d 897 (6th Cir. 1970); Brad­
ley v. Milliken, 438 F.2d 897 (6th Cir. 1971); Bradley
v. Milliken, _____ F.2d _____(6th Cir. Feb. 23, 1972),
cert, denied, _____ U.S. __________r 41 U.S.L.W. 3175
( Oct. 10, 1972); Bradley v. Milliken, _____
F.2d _____ (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 1972) and Bradley v. Mil­
liken , _____ F.2d _____ , (6th Cir. en banc, Jun 12, 1973)



The pertinent prior proceedings and decisions in this 
cause in the District Court are set forth in September 
3, 1970 Ruling on Application for Preliminary Injunction, 
Motion to Intervene, and Motion to Dismiss, aff1d in 
part and rev'd in part, 433 F.2d 897; December 3, 1970 
Ruling on School Plans submitted, remanded and instruc­
tions, 438 F. 2d 897 ; Feb. 16, 1971 Rulings and Order on 
Class Action and Standing; Ruling on Issue of Segrega­
tion, 338 F.Supp. 582 (E.D.Mich. 1971) aff1d en banc,
_____ F.2d _____ (June 12, 1973); Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law on Detroit-Only Plans of Desegregation,
_____F.Supp. ______ (E.D. Mich. March 28, 1972), aff'd
en banc, _____ F.2d _____ (June 12, 1973) ; Ruling on
Propriety of a Metropolitan Remedy to Accomplish De­
segregation of the Public Schools of the City of Detroit,
_____F.Supp. ______, (E.D. Mich. June 12, 1973), aff'd
en banc in part, and vacated en banc as set forth in
_____ F.2d _____ (June 12, 1973);Ruling on Desegregation
Area and Development of Plan, Findings of Fact and Con­
clusions of Law in Support Thereof, _____ F.Supp.
(E.D. Mich. June 14, 1972), vacated en banc in part and
reinstated en banc in part as set forth in _____ F.2d
_____ (June 12, 1973); Order for Acquisition of Trans­
portation, _____F.Supp. ______ (E.D. Mich. July 11, 1972),
vacated en banc as set forth in _____ F.2d _____ (June
12, 1973).

2. The pleadings and evidence already of re­
cord in this cause are now and have been on file in the 
District Court and available for inspecition and/or co­
pying by any interested party. *

*II. DEFENDANTS
3. The original Detroit School District De­

fendants are the Board of Education of the City of De­
troit, its Superintendent (now Charles Wolfe), and the 
members of the Board of Education.

2



4. The original State Defendants are Governor 
William J. Milliken, Attorney General Frank J. Kelley, 
the Michigan State Board of Education and its Superin­
tendent, John W. Porter.

5. The intervening Detroit defendants are (a) 
the Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, American 
Federation of Teachers, AFL—CIO and (b) Denise Magdowski, 
et al.

6. The intervening suburban defendants are 
Allen Park Public Schools, School District of the City 
of Berkeley, Brandon Schools, Centerline Public Schools, 
Cherry Hill School District, Chippewa Valley Public 
Schools, School District of the City of Clawson, Crest- 
wood School District, Dearborn Public Schools, Dearborn 
Heights School District No. 7, East Detroit Public Schools, 
School District of the City of Ferndale, Flat Rock Com­
munity Schools, Garden City Public Schools, Gibralter 
School District, School District of the City of Hazel 
Park, Intermediate School District of the County of Ma­
comb, Lake Share Public Schools, Lakeview Public Schools, 
The Lamphere Schools, Lincoln Park Public Schools,Madison 
District Public Schools, Melvindale-North Allen Park 
School District, School District of North Dearborn Heights, 
Novi Community School District, Oak Park School District, 
Oxford Area Community Schools, Redford Union School Dist­
rict No. 1, Richmond Community Schools, School District
of the City of River Rouge, Riverview Community School 
District, Roseville Public Schools, South Lake Schools, 
Taylor School District, Warren Consolidated Schools, Warren 
Woods Public Schools, Wayne-Westland Community Schools, 
Woodhaven School District, Wyandotte Public Schools,
Grosse Pointe Schools, Southfield Public Schools, School 
District of the City of Royal Oak and Kerry Green, et al.

7. The added state defendant is State Trea­
surer Allison Green.

3



8. The added suburban defendants are (a) the 
Wayne County Intermediate School District, the Oakland 
County Intermediate School District, Lakeview Public 
Schools, Fitzgerald Public Schools, Fraser Public Schools, 
Harper Woods School District, Van Dyke Public Schools, 
Hamtramck School District, School District of the City 
of Troy, Highland Park City School District, School Dis­
trict of the City of Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills School 
District, Farmington Public School District, Clarenceville 
School District, West Bloomfield School District, Livonia 
Public School District, South Redford School District, 
Romulus Township School District, Inkster School District, 
Westwood Community School District, Ecorse Public School 
District, Southgate Community School District, Riverview 
Community School District, Holly Area Schools, Huron 
Valley Schools, Lake Orion Community School District, Ro­
chester Community School, Walled Lake Consolidated1 School 
District, Avondale School District, Clarkston Community 
Schools, South Lyon Con\nuinity Schools, Waterford School 
District, Mt. Clemens Community School District, Anchor 
Bay School District, Romeo Community Schools, Clinton- 
dale Community Schools, L'anse Creuse Public Schools,
South Lake Schools, Utica Community Schools, Armada Area 
Schools, New Haven Community Schools, Plymouth Community 
School District, Huron School District, Northville Public 
School District, Van Buren Public School District, Grosse 
lie Township School District, Trenton Public School Dis­
trict; (b) all other school districts, if any, in the tri­
county area; (c) the Boards of Education and Members of the 
Boards of Education in each school district in the tri­
county area; (d) the Superintendents of each school dis-

«

trict in the tri-county area.
9. On or about November 6, 1971, the inter­

vening and added suburban defendants were aware that the 
District Court ordered the State Board of Education to 
submit a metropolitan plan of desegregation for the De—

4



troit Public Schools on November 5, 1971. Prior thereto, 
intervening and added suburban defendants were aware that 
proof introduced in this cause on the trial of the issue 
of segregation concerned various state actions by the de­
fendants (or their agents) then before the Court, state 
law, or the State of Michigan relating to the official 
segregation of black citizens in the Detroit Public Schools 
an<̂  their official segregation from white citizens in 
suburban schools; that the District Court warned during the 
trial that the State Defendants should consider the broa­
dest possible remedies; and that a motion to add all su­
burban school district defendants as defendants was filed 
and held in abeyance. No suburban defendant chose to file 
application for leave to intervene prior to February 9,
1972. On or about March 16, 1972, added suburban de­
fendants were aware that the applications for leave to 
intervene filed by any suburban school district were gran­
ted by the District Court on March 15, 1972. Some of the 
added defendants thereafter filed writs of mandamus or 
prohibition against the District Judge which were denied 
without prejudice to their rights to^intervene in the 
District Court. Despite awareness of these facts, added 
suburban school district defendants, to this date, have 
chosen not to file application for leave to intervene. In 
any event, at every stage of these proceedings someone of 
the then party defendants presented the defenses avail­
able to any suburban school district defendants. III.

III. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS TO CONFORM TO THE EVIDENCE
10. Wholly apart from the actions of any suburban 

defendants, various state actions— by the original Detroit 
and State defendants, their agents, state law, and the 
State of Michigan--contributed to the expanding pattern 
of official segregation and containment of black children 
in racially identifiable, virtually all black schools in 
the Detroit Public Schools surrounded by racially identi-

5



fiable., virtually all white schools in the suburban pub­
lic schools throughout the tri-county area. These state 
actions include, but are not limited to, new school con­
struction; discriminatory reimbursement of transporta­
tion funds; the validation and reimposition of the boun­
daries of the Detroit School District, imposition of a 
segregatory pupil assignment policy for the Detroit Pub­
lic Schools, creation of segregated school regional boun­
daries , recission of steps toward desegregation, and 
the particular carve-out of regional school governance 
units wholly within the Detroit School District by Act 
48 of the Public Acts of 1970; the transfer and/or trans­
portation of students across school districts and within 
school districts with the purpose and/or effect of offi­
cial school segregation; limitations on operation of 
bonding authority; and the operation of state aid and fi­
nancial limitations, in conjunction with other official 
actions of segregation which left the Detroit School Dis­
trict virtually bankrupt 'and further identified it as a 
black school district. Wholly apart from any action by 
suburban school district defendants, the state actions 
noted above are significant, pervasive and causally re­
lated to the official and substantial segregation of 
black children in and within the Detroit Public Schools. 
Wholly apart from any action by suburban school district 
defendants, the state, through the actions noted above, 
has acted in a racially discriminatory fashion with the 
effect of creating and maintaining the expanding pattern 

racial segregation noted above and along school district 
lines. Wholly apart from any action by suburban school 
district defendants, the pattern of racially identifiable, 
virtually all white schools in the suburbs is a result, 
in part, from the official containment and segregation of 
black children in racially identifiable and virtually all 
black schools within the City of Detroit.

6



11. The state controls the instrumentalities 
whose action is necessary to remedy the expanding pattern 
of official and substantial school segregation noted 
above. Suburban school districts— like the Detroit School 
District, intermediate, local and regional school dis­
tricts are subordinate governmental entities which have 
been created and carved out by the state and given varying 
powers to assist in carrying out the state responsibility 
for education and whose size and boundaries are uneven, 
often crossed by school children and school programs and 
bear little relationship to other governmental units. Their 
present form serves no compelling state interest. The 
State Board of Education has various authority and power—  
including, but not limited to, distribution of funds, 
accreditation, and general supervision and responsibility 
for public education in the state— at its disposal to 
assist in planning and implementing any desegregation plan 
for the Detroit Public Schools extending beyond the geo­
graphic boundaries of the City of Detroit. The State 
Board and Superintendent have the authority to require 
the elimination of segregation between and within school 
districts.

12. The Detroit metropolitan area has grown
as a series of interrelated and overlapping economic, re­
creation, service, and governmental units with many per­
sons locating in the suburbs but working and enjoying 
services in Detroit, and others living in Detroit but 
working and enjoying services in the suburbs. The school 
and housing opportunities for black citizens in the De­
troit Metropolitan Area, however, have been and remain 
restricted by discriminatory state action to separate, 
and distant areas within the City and a few other areas 
of historic racial containment throughout the metropo­
litan area.

13. Although plaintiffs' Plan of Desegre­
gation limited to the geographic limits of the City of

7



Detroit would accomplish more actual desegregation than 
now obtains in the system or would be achieved under 
Detroit Board Plans A and C, any actual plan of desegre­
gation for the Detroit Public Schools limited to the 
geographic limits of the City of Detroit:

(a) Will, by official action, make all 
schools in the Detroit Public School 
System racially identifiable as black 
and make the entire Detroit school sys­
tem identifiably black;

(b) Will not achieve the effective desegre­
gation of the Detroit Public Schools;

(c) Does not promise realistically, to sub­
stitute, now or hereafter, a system of 
just schools for the system of illegally 
segregated white schools and black school 
found;

(d) Will not now eradicate the constitutional 
violations found and will not herafter 
prevent their reoccurence.

14. The only feasible plan of desegregation 
for the constitutional violations found, considering 
the practicalities of the situation, involves the cros­
sing of the boundary lines between the Detroit School 
District and adjacent or nearby school districts for 
the limited purpose of providing an effective desegrega­
tion plan.

15. The pupils, teachers, resources and fa­
cilities of the following defendant local and interme­
diate school districts are necessary in this cause for 
the limited purpose of accomplishing the effective dese­
gregation of the Detroit public schools now and hereaf­
ter, including, but not limited to, inclusion in the de­
segregation area for pupil and staff assignment:

Wayne County Intermediate; Oakland County
Intermediate; Macomb County Intermediate;



Lake Shore; Roseville City, East Detroit 
City; South Lake; Grosse Pointe; Lake- 
view; Centerline; Fitzgerald; Warren 
Woods; Fraser; Harper Woods; Van Dyke• 
Warren Consolidated; Hazel Park City;' 
Hamtramck; Lamphere; Madison Heights;
City of Troy; Ferndale City; Berkeley 
City; Highland Park; Royal Oak City; 
Clawson City; Birmingham; Oak Park City* 
f U^ field; Bloomfield Hills; Farmington- South Redford; North Dearborn Heights- 
Crestwood; Cherry Hill; Redford Union,- 
Taylor; Dearborn City; Dearborn Heights; 
Fairlane; Romulus Township; Inkster City; 
Wayne-Westland Community; Westwood Com­munity; Ecorse; Allen Park; Southgate 
Community; River Rouge City; Riverview 
Community; Wyandotte City; Lincoln Park City; Melvmdale-North Allen.

16. The pupils, teachers, resources and 
facilities of the following defendant school districts 
are necessary for the limited purpose of accomplishing 
the effective desegregation of theDetroit public schools 
now and hereafter, including, but not limited to, re­
view of any additions to school building capacity and 
staff hiring to determine their present or potential 
effect on the school desggr.egation plan.

wovi community; Holly Area;
Huron Valley; Lake Orion Community; Ox­
ford Area Community; Rochester Communi­
ty; Walled Lake Consolidated; Avondale- Brandon Township; Clarkston Commu­
nity; South Lyon Community; Waterford- 
Mt. Clemens Community; Anchor Bay;
Richmond Community; Romeo Community; 
Chippewa Valley; Clintondale; L'Anse 
Creuse; South Lake; Utica Community;
rmada Area; New Haven Community; Plymouth 

Community; Huron; Northville; Van Buren;
tT ™  °Gk Community; Gibraltar; Grosse lie Township; Trenton Public Schools; Woodhaven.

17. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, 
as additional allegations to conform to the evidence, the 
Findings of Fact in Support of Desegregation Area and de­
velopment of Plans issued by the District Court June 14,

1972, paragraph 1 to 91. (These Findings of Fact are 
attached as Exhibit B].

9



WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that 
the Court order a speedy hearing of this action according 
to law and the guidelines established by the Sixth Cir­
cuit in its Opinion and Order of June 12, 1973, and 
upon such hearing:

a. Enter a decree approving an effective me­
tropolitan plan of desegregation for the Detroit Public 
Schools which promises realistically to work now and 
hereafter to maintain a racially unified, non-discrimina­
tory system of public schooling. Such plan should in­
clude the utilization of all reasonable and feasible 
methods and tools of desegregation as set forth in the 
guidelines established by the Sixth Circuit in its de­
cision en banc of June 12, 1973, and the controlling de­
cisions of the Supreme Court; provided, however, pursuant 
to the decision of the Sixth Circuit, that existing go­
vernmental and organizational structures shall, in any 
case, be maintained to the extent possible, pending a 
reasonable opportunity for the Michigan Legislature to 
act to alter same.

b. Enter a decree enjoini-ng defendants to 
implement no later than the 1974-75 school year and 
maintain thereafter such an effective metropolitan
plan for the desegregation of the Detroit Public Schools.

c. Award to plaintiffs' attorneys reasonable 
counsel fees for services rendered and to be rendered 
in, and reimbursement for all out-of-pocket expenses of, 
this action.

d. Retain continuing jurisdiction of this cause 
and grant such other and additional relief as may appear 
to the Court to be equitable and just.

10



Respectfully submitted

PAUL R. DIMOND
906 Rose Avenue LOUIS R. LUCAS
Ann Arbor, Mich. 48104 WILLIAM E. CALDWELL

RATNER, SUGARMON & 
J. HAROLD FLANNERY 525 Commerce Title
Center for Law & Education Memphis, Tennessee 
Larsen Hall
14 Appian Way NATHANIEL JONES
Cambridge, Mass. 02138 1790 Broadway

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

LUCAS
Building

38103

10019

11