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

Reply from Board of Education Defendants to Plaintiffs' Motion Pursuant to U.S.C. 292(b) for Appointment of Trial Judge preview

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.

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.

Return to top