Order with Cover Letter

    OFFIC OF  T HE  CLERK

United s t a t e - Co u ..t of  A p pe a ls
FOR T. SIXTH CIRCUIT

CINC..V.NATI. OHIO -1,5202

Novem, or 2 7 , 97 2

George T. Ron-..el- Jr.
-j..ey and Roumelr 

: ..0 Ford Building
croit, Michigan 48226

*. Louis R. Lucas 
.....r, Sugarmon & Lucas 

92> Commerce Title Building 
Aumphis, Tennessee 33103

Re: Ronald Bradley, et al., vs.
Board of Education of the 
City of Detroit, Michigan 
No. 72-1811

Gentlemen:

Enclosed is a copy of an order which was 
entered today in the above-styled case.

Yours very truly,

Enclosure

cc: William M. Saxton
Douglas H. West 
Richard P. Condit 
Kenneth B. McConnell 
Robert J. Lord 
Frank J. Kelley 
J. Harald Flannery 
Jack Greenberg 
E. Winther McCroom 
Nathaniel R. Jones 
Bruce Miller 
Alexander B. Ritchie

James A . Higgins
— -

Chief Deputy

Clerk

Ralph B. Guy, Jr. 
Theodore Sachs 
William T. Downs



No. 72-J.811

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR TEE SIXTH CIRCUIT

CARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL 
DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, 
a school district of the first 
class,

, Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.

RONALD BRADLEY, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, EDWARDS and PECK, Circuit Judges.

On receipt and consideration of a motion filed 

the above styled case and entitled "Emergency Motion 

of Board of Education of the School District of the City 

of Detroit to Order Governor of the State of Michigan, the 

.. • ornev General of the State of Michigan, the Treasurer 

of the State of Michigan, the Superintendent of Public 

Instruction for the State of Michigan, the Members of the 

State Board of Education of Michigan and Other State Officials 

to Provide Funds to Keep the Detroit Public Schools Operating 

for a Full 180 Regular Days of Instruction," and on 

inspection of the record in Bradley v. Milliken (Nos.

) O R D E R
)
)
)
)
)

72-1805, 72-1814), the emergency motion referred to above



No. 72-1811 w  w  2.

io hereby dismissed lor want of jurisdiction.

j.ais j_ecOid discloses that if this motion be con­

nived Oi as an appeal from Judge Roth's Injunctive order dated 

7, 1972, no notice or appear has ever been filed concern­

ing said order, and time for filing such a notice has long 

expired. If said motion be conceived of as a petition for 

equitable relief directed to the federal judicial power, it is 

clear to us that It must be directed in the first instance to

m e  appropriate United States District Court with jurisdiction

in the premises.

vva speciiiea_iy note that the fact that certain 

of the orders entered by Judge Roth have been appealed to this 

court does not deprive the District Court of jurisdiction to 

near petitions to alter or amend continuing injunctive orders 

on the basis of change of circumstances. See Kelley v. Metro- 

-'R1 . '-ounty Board of Education of Nashville and Davidson

County, Tennessee. 463 F.2d 732 (6th Cir. 1972).

ihe dismissal of the aforesaid motion is without 

prejudice to the right of the parties to seek in the District

Court a modification of the order of that court dated July 7,

Entered by order of the Court.

1972.