Monteilh v. St. Landry Parish School Board Appellants' Response to Supplemental Brief of Appellee
Public Court Documents
February 9, 1988

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Monteilh v. St. Landry Parish School Board Appellants' Response to Supplemental Brief of Appellee, 1988. fa8fbc29-be9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/af59ac9b-fb7a-4bac-a1c6-fe85828420cb/monteilh-v-st-landry-parish-school-board-appellants-response-to-supplemental-brief-of-appellee. Accessed June 13, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Nos. 87-4224, -4651 MARILYN MARIE MONTEILH, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ST. LANDRY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Opelousas Division APPFT.TANTS' RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF APPELLEE MARION OVERTON WHITE 516 East Landry Street Opelousas, Louisiana 70570-6128 (318) 948-8296 JULIUS L. CHAMBERS NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 16th Floor 99 Hudson Street New York, New York 10013 (212) 219-1900 Attorneys for Appellants IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Nos. 87-4224, -4651 MARILYN MARIE MONTEILH, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ST. LANDRY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Opelousas Division CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons and bodies have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the Judges of this Court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal. Marilyn Marie Monteilh, Daron Anthony Monteilh, Martha Ann Monteilh and Geromaine Rita Monteilh, minors, by their father and next friend Embrick Monteilh; Sandra Ann Benson, Calvin Benson and Paul Benson, minors, by their mother and next friend, Rose Benson; Mary Glenda Malveau, Michael Malveau, Agnes Marie Malveau and Leo Paul Malveau, minors, by their father and next friend, Joseph Malveau; Elnora Malveaux, Jean Alice Malveaux, Robert Malveaux and Anthony Malveaux, minors, by their father and next friend, George Malveaux; Richard James Durrisseau, minor, by his father and next friend, Theo- dule Durrisseau, Jr.; Larry Alpough, Carl Alpough, Terry Alpough, Fran Alpough, Wanda Alpough and Leon Alpough, Jr., minors, by their father and next friend, Leon Al pough; Hilda Mae Lewis, minor, by her father and next friend, Clifton Lewis; Donald R. Semien and Annie Mae Semien, minors, by their father and next friend, Adrien Semien; Shirley Ann Semien, Wilfred Semien, Jr. , Carbino Blaze Semien, Tommy Semien, John Michael Semien, Linda i Faye Semien, Brenda Gail Semien and Blanche Sexnien, min ors, by their father and next friend, Wilfred Semien. The class of black children attending or entitled to attend the public schools of St. Landry Parish, and their parents and next friends Rebecca R. Boudreaux, Veronica LeBlanc, Eula Tezeno, McKinley Brown, Sr., Jake Paul, and Velma Savant, as parents of children attending the public schools of St. Landry Parish, and more particularly, Melville High School Marion Overton White, Esq., Julius L. Chambers, Esq., Theodore M. Shaw, Esq., and Norman J. Chachkin, Esq., as attorneys for Monteilh, et al. The St. Landry Parish School Board Joshua J. Pitre, Gus Breaux, Clifton Clause, Bryant Goudeau, Patty Prather, Roger Young, John Miller, Gilbert Austin, Jackie Beard, Jack Ortego, Jerry Domengeaux, August L. Manual, and Ronald Carriere, as members of the St. Landry Parish School Board Henry DeMay, as Superintendent of Schools of St. Landry Parish Morgan J. Goudeau, Esq., District Attorney, and I. Jackson Burson, Jr., Esq., Assistant District Attorney, as attorneys for St. Landry Parish School Board, et al. The United States of America Hon. Joseph S. Cage, Jr., Esq., United States At torney, as attorney for United States NORMAN J. CHACHKIN Attorney for Plaintiffs- Appellants ii IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 87-4224, -4651 MARILYN MARIE MONTEILH, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ST. LANDRY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Opelousas Division APPELLANTS' RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF APPELLEES * 1 Much of the post-argument supplemental brief filed by the school board is repetitious of earlier arguments and we certainly do not wish to burden the Court with a repetition of our own an swers to those arguments. A very few points should be made, how ever. 1. Insofar as the Supplemental Brief states that the "School Board has purchased sites for the three proposed consolidated schools" (p. 3) or "has invested $445,000.00 in land costs" (p. 5) or "has already spent $445,000.00" (p. 31), it refers to matters outside the record and, more significant, to appellants' knowledge and belief it is incorrect. The school board did formally contract to pay $225,000 for the Lebeau site and the record includes a deed and donation of that land (Exhibits 2 & 3 to Opposition to Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal in No. 87-4224, cited at p. 5 of Supplemental Brief). However, with respect to the other sites, the language of the Supplemental Brief should be read most carefully. The brief (p. 5) does not refer to "purchase" but states that two bids were "accepted" by the school board on March 19, 1987. Exhi bits 5 & 6 to the Opposition to Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal. which are cited in the Supplemental Brief, are the bids from property owners. There is no Exhibit 7 to the earlier Oppo sition — only an Affidavit No. 7 from the Superintendent of Schools, which states: On March 19, 1987, the St. Landry Parish School Board chose proposal number two of John L. Olivier as the site for the Southeast Consol idated School and the proposal of Band Corpor ation as the site for the Northwest School.^ To appellants' current knowledge, information and belief, the plots referred to in this entry have not yet been "purchased" by the St. Landry Parish School Board.2 Thus, in weighing the equities of a ■•-There is an Exhibit No. 7 to the similar opposition to plain tiffs' motion for injunction pending appeal filed in the district court. That exhibit contains retyped excerpts from the Minute Book of the St. Landry Parish School Board. For March 19, 1987 the entry is shown as follows: The board selected architects for construction and renovation. The board decided to close Leonville Elementary and renovate Leonville High. The board selected the Olivier property as the site of the Southwest Consolidated High School. The board selected the Band Corpora tion property as the site of the Northwest Consolidated High School. 2The School Board may have delayed in going forward with these purchases because of the pendency of No. 87-4224 in this Court; it may also have had difficulty in selling the bonds authorized by the voters to raise money for these purchases due to both that appeal and also to several state court challenges to the consoli dation plan that have been brought. 2 pendente lite injunction against further implementation of the high school consolidation and construction plan, the Court should not assume from the representations made in the Supplemental Brief that the school board might ultimately have to sell three. rather than one. site which it has purchased.3 2. The school board continues to premise its arguments upon the underlying assumption that the proposed North and Northwest consolidated high schools to be constructed "will be at least 33 percent" white (p. 2) or where white students "are 33 percent of the enrollment" (p. 30 [emphasis added]). Of course, the validity of these projected enrollments is a central issue in No. 87-4224. 3. The board also argues that appellants' allegations about zone-jumping are disproved by the computer print-outs furnished prior to the district court hearing and made a part of the record in the case (No. 87-4651, SB X 6). (See Supplemental Brief pp. 2, 24.) There are many difficulties with the print-outs. For example, some pupils' addresses are shown simply as R.F.D. box num bers; cf. SB X 8 (sample letter to principal referring to students residing in trailer park "off Highway 190, West"). In other cases, students may have given false addresses (those of friends or rel atives) in order to establish purported eligibility for attendance. The record is clear that the system employs no regular procedure for validating student addresses. Indeed, it is precisely because 3Black school board member Gilbert Austin testified that the Lebeau property could easily be resold (87-4224 2 R. 142-43). 3 of the lack of precision in so many student addresses as reflected in the records of the school system that appellants in No. 87-4224 have sought an appropriate and thorough demographic study in con nection with the consideration of any high school consolidation and construction plan. Appellants have dealt with the question of zone jumping in some detail in earlier briefs. We do wish to give the Court the full context of the response by Mr. Auzenne quoted in the board's Supplemental Brief at p. 25.4 4The entire exchange, insofar as relevant to zone-jumping, is as follows: CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WHITE: Q. The only way that you would come into con tact with problems of the zone jumping were as you indicated earlier if a complaint was brought to your attention at the central office, right? A. Generally, yes. Q. It was not your job to go and canvass the parish and look and see where people spent the night or the weekends? A. No. Q. And if there were some zone jumping into the Port Barre area from the Plaisance zone or Opelousas zone and they were not reported, you would not know about it? A. No, I would not. Q. And this would be true not only for those attendance zones but for all attendance zones in the parish? 4 Conclusion The Supplemental Brief of Appellees fails to articulate any basis for upholding the judgments below, which should be reversed and the case remanded with instructions, as described in appel lants' earlier briefs on these appeals and as discussed at the oral argument hereof. Opelousas, Louisiana 70570-6128 (318) 948-8296 JULIUS L. CHAMBERS NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 16th Floor 99 Hudson Street New York, New York 10013 (212) 219-1900 Attorneys for Appellants A. Right. Q. Okay. And you indicated generally there weren't any zone jumping, but you do know of a few zone jumpings that were brought to your attention, that the top administrator permitted it to exist, that you prefer not— A. You say the top administrator. Q. The superintendent, if you may? A. I don't know of any cases where the super intendent sanctioned zone jumping. (87-4224 3 R. 97-99.) 5 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on this 9th day of February, 1988, I served two copies of the foregoing Appellants' Response to Sup plemental Brief of Appellees upon counsel for the appellees and the United States, by depositing same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: I. Jackson Burson, Esq. Assistant District Attorney 27th Judicial District P.0. Box 965 Eunice, Louisiana 70535 Hon. Joseph S. Cage, Jr. United States Attorney Joe D. Waggoner Federal Building 500 Fannin Street Shreveport, Louisiana 71101 Norman J. Chachkin