University of Tennessee v. Elliott Appendix to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
Public Court Documents
October 7, 1985

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Motion for Clarifications and/or Modification of Stay Order, 1972. 87d8cd99-53e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/700c8a55-0ff3-4545-be87-38025b8436dc/motion-for-clarifications-andor-modification-of-stay-order. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT NO. 72-8002 RONALD BRADLEY, et al. , Plaintiffs-Appellee v s . ^ WILLIAM J. MILLIKEN, et al., Defendants-Appellants On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR MODIFICATION OF STAY ORDER Plaintiff-appellees in the above-styled cause respectfully move the court for an order clarifying and/or modifying the stay order heretofore entered on July 20, 1972 to the end that the district court will be permitted to conduct all proceedings and hearings necessary to the formulation of a final order in this case. As grounds for this motion, plaintiffs-appellees respect fully show the Court: 1. As evidenced by the motions of some of the appellants (previously denied by this Court on August 7, 1972) there is some confusion as to that portion of this Court's July 20 Order which directs that all other proceedings in the District Court other than planning proceedings, be stayed pending the hearing of this appeal on its merits and the disposition of the appeal by this Court, or until further order of this court. This stay • order does not apply to the studies and planning of the panel which,has been appointed by the District Court in its order of June 14, 1972, which panel was charged with the duty of desegrega tion. Said panel is authorized to pro ceed with its studies and planning during . the disposition of this appeal, to the end that there will be no unnecessary delay in the implementation of the ultimate steps contemplated in the orders of the District Court in event the decision of the District Court is affirmed on appeal. 2. On July 31, 1972, the panel appointed by the district court filed its proposed desegregation plan consisting of a 53-page narrative description and several hundred pages of detail reflecting actual pupil assignments under the plan. On August 31, 1972, two members of the 11-member panel filed a minority report dissenting in part from some of the faculty dese gregation proposals of the panel majority's report of July 31, 1972. 3. Also on July 31, 1972, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction filed his recommendations regarding the interim (27 pages plus appendices) and final (54 pages) financial administrative and governance arrangements for the metropolitan desegregation plan. 4. Other than the legal objections to metropolitan desegregation which are presently awaiting resolution by this Court, it is expected that all parties will have some practical/ educational objections and modifications to the reports and proposals described in paragraphs 2 and 3 above. 5. Although it is not clear to us whether or not this Court's July 20 order allows the district court to conduct hearings to resolve the practical/educational objections which will be presented to it, it is respectfully submitted that such hearings should be allowed so that all steps precedent to a final order in the district court may be taken "to the end that there will be no unnecessary delay in the implementation of the ultimate steps contemplated in the orders of the District Court in event the decision of the District Court is affirmed on appeal (July 20 Order at 3). Under any other construction of the stay order, it should be noted that what has actually been suspended... is not a broad federal court order for desegregation... — in .. ... practical effect it is all proceedings and hearings concerning the formulation of such an order. Kelley v. Metropolitan County Bd. of Bduc., 436 F2d 856, 858 (6th Cir. 1970). WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs-appellees respectfully pray the Court for an order clarifying and/or - 3 - modifying the July 20 stay order so that, should the district court be affirmed, all steps precedent to a final order in the district court will have been taken. Respectfully submitted, LOUIS R. LUCASJ. HAROLD FLANNERY PAUL R. DIMOND ROBERT PRESSMAN Center for Law & Education Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts E. WINTHER McCROOM 3245 Woodburn Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio Attorney for Plaintiffs WILLIAM E. CALDWELL Ratner, Bugarmon & Lucas 525 Commerce Title Building Memphis, Tennessee NATHANIEL JONES General Counsel N.A.A.C.P. 1790 Broadway New York, New York JACK GREENBERG NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Certificate of Service I hereby certify that one copy of the foregoing Motion have been served upon all counsel of record, either by hand delivery or U.S. mail, postage prepaid, this 6th day of September 1972.