Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Public Court Documents
June 1, 1964

Motion for Preliminary Injunction preview

4 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Henry v. Clarksdale Hardbacks. Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 1964. 17e8d8e6-8418-f111-8342-7c1e526962fd. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/d3c15c67-0551-4c81-9a71-022bd56945a3/motion-for-preliminary-injunction. Accessed April 01, 2026.

    Copied!

     [||ef5d79b7-2236-45d3-af57-d755f24563ab||] 4 » 

IN THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT CCURT 

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

CLARKSDALE DIVISION 

REBECCA E. HENRY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

THE CLARKSDALE MUNICIPAL SEPARATE 
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 

and 

THE CLARKSDALE-COAHOMA SCHOOL 
BOARD, et al., 

Defendants. 

MCTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

Plaintiffs, upon the annexed complaint, move this Court for 

a preliminary injunction, pending the final disposition of this 

cause, and as grounds therefor rely upon the allegations of their 

complaint and show the following: 

1. Plaintiffs continue to be assigned and forced to attend 

raclally segregated schools operated by the defendants pursuant to 

state statutes, policy, practice, custom, and usage as set forth 

in the complaint. 

2. Plaintiffs' constitutional rights are violated by such 

assignment and attendance at racially segregated schools. 

3. Plaintiffs have petitioned the defendants in vain to 

initiate desegregation of the public schools in compliance with 

the United States Supreme Court school desegregation decision of 

1954. 

4. Plaintiffs are irreparably harmed by the defendant 

Board's continued failure either to desegregate the public schools 

under its jurisdiction or submit a plan for the reorganization of 

said school system on a unitary nonracial basis. 



* » 

5. The allegations in the complaint are similar to those 

made by plaintiffs in three actions filed in 1963 to desegregate 

school districts located in the Southern District of Mississippi. 

Evers v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, Civ. No. 3379; 

Hudson v. Leake County School Board, Civ. No. 3382; Mason v. 

Biloxi Municipal Separate School District, Civ. No. 2696. 

6. In reviewing these cases on appeal, the Fifth Circuit 

ruled that plaintiffs in such actions need not exhaust administra- 

tive remedies provided by Mississippi statutes prior to seeking 

federal court injunctive aid because racial segregation is enforced 

under Mississippi law. Speaking for the Court, Judge Bell said: 

"As matters now stand in Mississippi, racial 
segregation in the public schools is enforced 
and the rights of the appellants here under 
the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection 
of the laws are proscribed." 
Evers, et al. v. Jackson Municipal Separate 
School District, et al., F.2d (5th 
Cir., Feb. 13, 19647. 

The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to promptly 

consider plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions, and to 

be guided by relief accorded in Stell v. Savannah-Chatham County 

Board of Education, 318 F.2d 425 (5th Cir. 1963); Davis v. School 

Commissioners of Mobile County, 322 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1963); 

Armstrong v. Board of Education of Birmingham, 323 F.2d 333 (5th 

Cir. 1963). 

7. On March 4, 1964, the District Court entered pre- 

liminary injunction in all three cases, enjoining the operation of 

segregated schools, and requiring the school boards to submit by 

July 15, 1964, desegregation plans to include the desegregation of 

one full grade for the school year beginning in September 1964. 

8. In view of the above, plaintiffs submit that prompt 

action must be taken by this Court to protect plaintiffs' right to 

obtain a desegregated education within the Supreme Court's inter- 

pretation of all deliberate speed set forth in Watson v. City of 

Memphis, 373 U.S. 526 (1963), and Goss v. Knoxville, 373 U.S. 683 

(1963). 



4 » 
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court grant 

the following relief: 

1. Advance this cause on the docket and order a speedy 

hearing of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction which is 

filed simultaneously with the filing of this complaint and grant 

the relief prayed for therein. 

2. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, issue a preliminary 

injunction restraining ard enjoining the defendants, the School 

Board of the Clarksdale Municipal Separate School District, and the 

Clarksdale-Coahoma School Board, their members, employees and 

successors, and the Superintendents of Schools, their agents, 

employees and successors, and all persons in active concert and 

participation with the defendants: 

(a) to permit the plaintiffs and other members of their 

class vho epply, to attend, at the beginning of the Fall 1964 school 

year, schools presently limited to white children; 

(b) to prepare and submit for this Court's approval 

within 60 days, a complete plan providing for the reorganization 

of the entire school system of the City of Clarksdale into a 

unitary non-racial system which shall include a plan for the re- 

assignment of all Clarksdale children presently attending the 

public schools operated by defendants on a non-racial basis and 

which will provide for the future assignment of children to 

school on a non-racial basis, the assignment of teachers, principals, 

supervisors and other professional school personnel on a non=-racial 

basis, the elimination of racial designations as to schools, the 

elimination of all racial designations in the budgets, appropriations 

for school expenditures, and all plans for the construction of 

schools, and the elimination of racial restrictions on certain 

curricula and extra-curricular school activities, and the elimin- 

ation of any other racial distinction in the operation of the 

Clarksdale school system which is based upon race and color. 

4. Plaintiffs pray that this Court retain jurisdiction of 

this case pending the transition to a unitary non-racial system. 



5. Plaintiffs pray that this court will grant them their 

costs herein and grant them such other further, additional or 

alternative relief as may appear to a court of equity to be 

equitable and just. 

R. JESS BROWN 

125% N. Farish Street 
Jackson, Mississippi 

JACK GREENBERG 
CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY 
DERRICK A. BELL 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

NOTICE OF MOTION 

TO: THE CLARKSDALE MUNICIPAL SEPARATE 
SCHOOL DISTRICT, GYCELLE TYNES, 
Superintendent of Clarksdale City 
School; CHESTER H. CURTISS, Chairman, 
DR. WILLIAM WILKINS, BILLY FRAZIER, JR., 
LECN PORTER and HARVEY GRESHAM, 
Members, 

THE CLARKSDALE-CCAHOMA SCHOOL BOARD, 
composed of the above superintendent 
and members of the Clarksdale 
Municipal Separate School District, 
and the superintendent and members 
of the COAHOMA COUNTY BOARD OF 
EDUCATION, PAUL HUNTER, Superintendent, 
GRAHAM BRAMLETT, Chairman, C. M. ALLEN, 
MALCOLM CONNER, JIMMY HUMBER and 
S. H. KYLE, members, 

Defendants. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorneys for plain- 

tiffs will bring on the foregoing motion for preliminary injunction 

before the Honorable Claude F. Clayton, United States District 

Judge, Northern District of Mississippi, at (#v/sdi/’ , Miss., at 

[2:20 o'clock A.M., on the _/<Z day of ___ zu»: » 1964, oF 
as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard. 

Attorney for Plaintiffs [||ef5d79b7-2236-45d3-af57-d755f24563ab||] 

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.