Answer to Amended Complaint with Cover Letter
Public Court Documents
October 25, 1973
4 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Answer to Amended Complaint with Cover Letter, 1973. 55855ae3-53e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/9e897462-15fb-4839-b6c8-4b1499495978/answer-to-amended-complaint-with-cover-letter. Accessed December 04, 2025.
Copied!
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RONALD BRADLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs
vs •
WILLIAM G, MILLIKEN,
Defendants,
ana
DENISE MAGDCWSKI,
Defend ants-Intervenor3,
and
ALLEN PARK, et al.,
Def emdants-intervenors,
ana
KERRY GREEN, at al.,
Defendants-Interven®rs,
and
WAYNE COUNTY INTERMEDIATE
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,
Added Defendants*
CIVIL ACTION
NO* 3525?
ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
N ot carries the Defendant, School District *f the City »f Haiatramck,
a Municipal C@rp®rati©n, by its Attorney Charles ¥ # Ketulski and answers the
amended complaint filed in the above entitled cause as fallows:
I* Friar Proceedings
1. Answering Paragraph One «f said amended complaint, said
Defendant admits the recurrence ©f the prior proceedings alleged therein;
but further states the truth t© be that the prior proceedings sheuld not be.
applicable t© said Defendant, the Hamtramck School District,
2. Answering Paragraph ?w®, Defendant admits the allegations
therein contained, relative t» jurisdiction and further admits the amount
exists in excess of $1,000.00*
3* Answering Paragraph Three, Defendant admits the obligati©n
therein contained and further answering this paragraph as ts the allegation
incorporating by reference paragraphs tna through twenty-three of the
©riginal complaint. Said Defendant states that each paragraph contained
should not be applicable to the School District ®f the City of Hamtramck.
II. DEFENDANTS
iw Answering Paragraph Four, said Defendant admits the
allegations therein c@nts.iaed*
5* Answering Paragraph Five, said Defendant admits the
allegations therein contained.
6. Answering Paragraph Six, said Defendant admits the
allegations therein contained.
7* Answering Paragraph Severn, said Defendant admits the
allegations therein contained.
8. Answering Paragraph Eight, said Defendant admits the
allegations therein contained.
9 * Answering Paragraph Nine, said Defendant admits the
allegations therein contained.
III. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS TO CONFORM TO THE EVIDENCE
10* Answering Paragraph Ten, said Defendant neither admits
nor denies the allegations therein contained for want ®f knowledge of
same but further answers this paragraph by stating that the allegations
suggesting patterns of segregation of black and white students in the
Hamtramck School District is not now er never has been practiced in the
School District of the City ©f Hamtramck by virtue of the physical
arrangement of its Public Schools which consist of only one High School,
one Middle School and two Elementary Schools, all of which are being
attended by bath black and white students.
- 2 -
>
11. Answering Paragraph Eleven, said Defendant admits the
allegations therein contained but further answers this paragraph by-
stating that there is no need for elimination ©f segregation in the
School District of the City af Hamtramck, said Defendant District already
has a well balanced integrated school system,
12. Answering Paragraph Twelve, said Defendant neither admits
nor denies the allegations therein contained far want of knowledge of
matters existing in the Dtroit Metropolitan Area,
13. Answering Paragraph Thirteen, said Defendant neither admits
nor denies the allegations but leave Plaintiffs to their proofs • Further
answering this paragraph, item3 (a) and (b) Defendant denies the alleged
conclusions therein and states that the manner in which the Hamtramck
School District is being administered in n® way would add ®r contribute
to any further desegregation alleged to exist within the Detroit 'School
System*
lU* Answering Paragraph Fourteen, said Defendant denies, that the
submitted plan for meaningful desegregation would be accomplished, by cross-
district bussing insofar as it would apply to the School District ©f the
City af Hamtramck.
15. Answering Paragraph Fifteen, said Defendant denies the
allegations therein contained*
l6* Answering Paragraph Sixteen, said Defendant neither admits
nor denies the allegations therein contained but leaves Plaintiffs to
their prssfs,
17. Answering Paragraph Seventeen, said Defendant admits the :• , • ' ' \
allegations therein contained but further states that the said finding
of fact and additional allegations should not- be applicable to the Defendant,
School District af the City of Hamtramck*
Wherefore, Defendant, School District of the City ©f Hamtramck,
asks the Court to deny the relief prayed for in Plaintiffs’ amended complaint
and that the cause be dismissed as to this Defendant*
Charles W. Kotulski, Attorney 1
Defendant, School District of City
of Hamtramck
11578 St. Aubia Avenue
Hamtramck, Michigan
Phone: 369-920)}.
October 25, 1973
United States District Court Clerk
133 Federal Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226
RE: RONALD BRADLEY, Et Al
VS. WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, Et Al
C. A. NO. 35257
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed herewith Answer of Plymouth Community
School District, The Board of Education, Members of the
Board of Education and the Superintendent to Amended Complaint
to be filed in the above action.
Very truly yours,
SEMPLINER, THOMAS AND GUTH
WJG/jb
enc.
cc: Mr. Paul R. Dimond Louis R. Lucas
906 Rose Avenue 525 Commerce Title Bldg.
Ann Arbor, Mi. 48104 Memphis, Tenn. 38103
J. Harold Flannery .
Center for Law & Education
Larsen Hall
14 Appian Way
Cambridge, Mass 02138
Jack Greenberg
Norman J. Chachkin
10 Columbus Circle
New York, N.Y. 10019
Nathaniel Jones1790 Broadway
New York, N.Y. 10019
Elliott Hall
950 Guardian Bldg.
Detroit, Michigan 48226