McCain v Abel Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants

    I

IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 
No. 72-1373

(

THOMAS C. MCCAIN, et al..
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v .

C. ASHLEY ABEL, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

REPLY BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

JACK GREENBERG 
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON NORMAN CHACHKIN10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N.Y. 10019

LAUGHLIN MCDONALD 1611 Crestwood
Columbia, South Carolina 29206 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants

\



I N D E X
Page

TABLE OF CASES:

Atlantic Coastline R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 u.S. 281 (1970) ---------------------  1

Mttchum v. Foster, U.S. , 40 U.S.L.W. 4737(1972) --------- 3TZT----- ZZZT------- :-------------  i
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) ----------------  2

STATUTES:
28 U.S.C. § 2283 -------------------------------------  1
42 U.S.C. § 1983 -------------------------------------  1



IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 
No. 72-1373

THOMAS C. MCCAIN, et al..
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v.
C. ASHLEY ABEL, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

REPLY BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

Subsequent to the filing of Plaintiffs-Appellants' Brief 
in this Court, the Supreme Court of the United States squarely 
held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is an exception to the anti-injunction
statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. Mitch urn v. Foster, ____ U.S. _____,
40 U.S.L.W. 4737 (1972). In so doing it also held that Atlantic 
Coastline R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 
U.S. 281 (1970) was inapplicable to a § 1983 action. Thus, 
the Court reversed and remanded a district court decision that 
rested on the precise grounds relied upon by the court below 
xn this action.



Although it is now therefore clear that the decision below 
must be reversed, Plaintiffs-Appellants urge that this Court 
also hold that the action may not be dismissed on alternative 
grounds. That is, we contend that Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 
3^ (1971) also has no application here for the reasons set out 
in our brief in chief. We reiterate that as to the non-state 

pupil plaintiffs there is no bar whatsoever to their 
having their rights vindicated in federal court in the first 
instance.

Respectfully submitted,

cJACK GREENBERG 
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON NORMAN CHACHKIN10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N.Y. 10019

LAUGHLIN MCDONALD 1611 Crestwood
Columbia, South Carolina 29206 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have served two copies of the 
Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants on counsel for the 
Defendants-Appellees by depositing the same in the United 
Spates mail, airmail postage prepaid, addressed to Timothy G. 
Quinn, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, P.o. Box 11549, 
Columbia, South Carolina 29211.

Dated this 7th day of July, 1972.

X
LAttorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants

V<L

2