Monteilh v. St. Landry Parish School Board Appellants' Response to Supplemental Brief of Appellee

    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