Reply from Board of Education Defendants to Plaintiffs' Motion Pursuant to U.S.C. 292(b) for Appointment of Trial Judge
Public Court Documents
February 12, 1971

6 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Reply from Board of Education Defendants to Plaintiffs' Motion Pursuant to U.S.C. 292(b) for Appointment of Trial Judge, 1971. d8c9664f-52e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/de93f351-15d9-4670-8730-da41a327c3a0/reply-from-board-of-education-defendants-to-plaintiffs-motion-pursuant-to-usc-292-b-for-appointment-of-trial-judge. Accessed April 19, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF A P P E A L S FO R THE SIXTH CIRCUIT RONALD B R A D L E Y , et al., P la intif fs -A p p e l la n ts , v. W ILLIAM G. M ILLIK E N , et al., Defendants- A ppellees , No. 21036 and D E T R O IT FE D E R A TIO N OF TEACHERS, Def end ant-Inter ve n o r . R E P L Y OF BOARD OF EDUCATION DEFENDANTS TO P L A IN T IF F S ' MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U. S. C. 292 (b) FO R A P P O IN T M E N T OF T R IA L JUDGE M i l l e r , Canfield , P a dd ock and Stone 2500 D etro it Bank <k T ru st Building D etro it , M ich igan 48226 T elephone : 963-6420 A T T O R N E Y S FOR THE D E TR O IT BOARD OF EDUCATION DEFENDANTS IN THE UNITED STA TE S COURT OF A P P E A L S F O R THE SIXTH CIRCUIT R O N A L D B R A D L E Y , et al., vs. P la in t i f f s - A ppellants , W ILLIAM G. M IL L IK E N , et al., D efendants- A p p e l le e s , and No. 2 1 ,0 3 6 D E TR O IT F E D E R A TIO N OF TE A C H E R S, L O C A L 231, A M E R IC A N F E D E R A T IO N OF TE A C H E R S, A F L -C I O , Defendant-Inter venor . ON A P P E A L FR O M THE UNITED STA TE S DISTRICT COURT FO R THE E A STERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION R E P L Y OF BOARD OF EDUCATION DEFENDANTS TO P L A IN T IF F S ' M O TION PURSUANT TO 28 U. S. C. 292 (b) F O R A P P O IN T M E N T OF T R IA L JUDGE C om e now B oard o f Education Defendants through their unders igned cou n se l in rep ly to P la in t i f fs ' M ot ion fo r Appointm ent of T r ia l Judge, and res p e c t fu l ly state as f o l low s : 1. P la in t i f fs m ake this m ot ion s o le ly as an attempt to have Judge Roth r e m o v e d f r o m the a b o v e -e n t i t le d a ct ion and have a D is t r i c t Judge appointed who might be m o r e r e c e p t iv e to the ir v e r s i o n of the m e r i t s o f the c a s e , and as such, the M otion is a blatant exam ple o f ju d g e -s h o p p in g in v io la t ion of the p o l i c y of the F e d e r a l R u les of C iv i l P r o c e d u r e . 2. C o n tra ry to p la in t i f fs1 a s s e r t i o n s , Judge Roth at a ll t im es has acted ex p ed it iou s ly in this c a s e , and the delay in the t r ia l on the m e r i t s is due, in la rg e part , to P la in t i f f s 1 rep eated p r e l im in a r y m ot ion s , in te r lo c u to ry a ppea ls , and fa i lu re to co m p le te p r e t r ia l d i s c o v e r y . 3. On N o v e m b e r 4, 1970, the date f i r s t set for the t r ia l on the m e r i t s , the D is t r i c t C ourt heard te s t im on y and o r a l argum ent on P la in t i f f s1 M ot ion to Im p lem en t P lan . With the con sent o f a ll p a r t ie s , including P la in t i f fs , the t r ia l date was r e s e t fo r D e c e m b e r 8, 1970. On N o v e m b e r 18, 19, and 25, 1970, the D is t r i c t C ourt heard te s t im o n y in support of the s c h o o l plans submitted by the B oa rd o f E ducation D efendants . On D e c e m b e r 3, 1970, Judge Roth granted the B oard of E ducation Defendants M otion fo r a Continuance until on or a fter January 18, 1971 on the grounds e x p r e s s e d in his ru ling that: a. Beginning the t r ia l on D e c e m b e r 8 would re su lt in f ra gm en ta t ion of the p r o ce e d in g s b e ca u s e o f the im pending ho l idays ; b . The D etro it B oard of Education was in the p r o c e s s of d ecen tra l iza t ion ; c . It would have been g r o s s ly unfair to the ten new m e m b e r s of the C entra l B oard of Education not to a llow them to part ic ipa te in the t r ia l on m e r i t s ; d. T h ere was a p o s s ib i l i ty that the United States Suprem e C ourt would ren d er a d e c is io n which would a f fec t the tr ia l ; and e. The C o u r t ’ s o rd e r d ire c t in g the im plem entat ion of - 2 - Plan A had r e s o lv e d the m o s t urgent i s s u e in the ca s e . 4. At the p r e t r ia l c o n fe re n ce held in ch a m b ers on the a fternoon of /•* D e c e m b e r 3, Judge Roth indicated that the tr ia l on the m e r it s would be scheduled in late M a rch or A p r i l , 1971. His act ion could w e l l have been based on a num ber of fa c to r s in addition to the C o u rt 's schedule , including: a. The p r o s p e c t o f another appeal by Pla intif fs to the Sixth C ircu it (the notice of A ppea l was f i led with the D is t r i c t Court on D e c e m b e r 3) with the attendant demands on the t im e of cou n se l and the p o s s ib i l i ty that a d ec is ion , which could a f fec t further p r o c e d u r e s in the ca se , might not be is su ed by the Sixth until F eb ru a ry or M arch , 1971; b. The need fo r further p r e t r ia l d i s c o v e r y , c o n fe r e n c e s , s tatem ents , and a hearing to determ in e the valid ity and definit ion o f the c la s s re p re se n te d by P la in t i f fs , and an opportunity, c o n s i s tent with due p r o c e s s , to give n ot ice to the m e m b e r s of that c la s s ; c . The fact that a d e c is io n on the m e r it s ren d ered in A p r i l , should it be favora b le to pla intiffs , would leave adequate t im e fo r Defendants to im p lem en t any o rd e r which might be issued by the D is t r i c t Court by Septem ber , 1971. 5. In January, 1971, the D is t r i c t Court set a hear ing to determ in e the valid ity and scop e o f the c la s s r e p re se n te d by Pla intiffs for F e b ru a ry 8, 1971. At the req u es t of the State Defendants, that hearing was re s ch ed u led fo r F e b ru a ry 11, 1971. A t that hear ing Judge Roth ruled on the definit ion t of the c la s s re p re se n te d by P la int i f fs , m ade p r o v is io n for not ice on F e b ru a ry 16, 1971 to the m e m b e r s of that c la s s , set a deadline o f M a rch 9, 1971 fo r said m e m b e r s to intervene or except th e m s e lv e s f r o m the act ion , scheduled a hear ing on any such m otions to intervene or ex cep t fo r M a rch 18, - 3 - scheduling another p r e t r ia l c o n f e r e n c e fo r M a rc h 22 and scheduled the t r ia l to beg in on A p r i l 6, 1971 with exhibits to be m arked on A p r i l 5. 6. Many of the i s s u e s , facts, and leg a l author it ies w hich w i l l be re levant to the t r ia l on the m e r i t s have a lread y been p laced b e fo r e Judge Roth; another Judge would re q u ire additional t im e to b e c o m e fa m i l ia r with m a tters a lrea d y known by Judge Roth and could w e l l delay the t r ia l until a fter A p r i l 6. W H E R E F O R E , the B oard of Education Defendants r e s p e c t fu l ly subm it that P la in t i f fs have fa i led to es tab l ish any grounds w hich ju st i fy their M otion and re q u e s t that P la in t i f f s 1 M otion fo r A ppointm ent o f T r ia l Judge be a ltogether denied . R e s p e c t fu l ly submitted, "NAillp'-r C. a -n f i 1 r! P a rlrl rx-lr a nrl S ir in p C a r l H. von Ende A ttorn ey s fo r The D etro it B oard of Education 2500 D etro it Bank & T ru st Building D etro it , M ich igan 48226 T e lephone - 963-6420 4 - C E R T IF IC A T E OF SERVICE This is to c e r t i fy that a cop y o f the f o re g o in g R ep ly to P la in t i f f - A p p e l la n ts r M otion Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 292 (b) f o r Appointm ent of T r ia l Judge has been s e r v e d on cou n se l f o r the P la in t i f f -A p p e l le e s , Lou is R. L ucas , W il l iam E. Caldwell , 525 C o m m e r c e T it le Building, M em phis , T e n n e s s e e 38103; E. Winther M c C r o o m , 3245 W oodburn Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45207; Nathaniel Jones, 1790 B roadw ay, New Y ork , N. Y. ; Jack G reen b erg , Jam es M. Nabrit III, N orm an J. Chachkin, 10 Colum bus C ir c le , New Y ork , N. Y. 10019; B ru ce M i l le r , L u c i le Watts, 3426 C ad illac T o w e r , D etro it , M ich igan 48226; J. H aro ld Flannery , Paul Dimond, 38 K ir land Street, C am bridge , M a ss ; C ounsel f o r D e fen dants - A p p e l le e s , Eugene K ra s ick y , The Seven Story O f f ice Building, 525 West Ottawa Street, Lansing, M ich igan 48926, and C ounsel f o r Intervening Defendant, T h e o d o re Sachs, 3610 C ad illac T o w e r , D etro it , M ich igan 48226, by United States Mail, pos tage prepaid , this 12th day o f F e b ru a ry , 1971.