Arkansas Training School for Boys at Wrightsville Board of Managers v. George Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants

    lit itzb i>tat?a ©mitt of Apppaia
F ob th e  E ig h t h  C ircuit

No. 18,536

T h e  B oard of M anagers of t h e  A rkansas T rain in g  
S chool for B oys at W rightsville , et al.,

Defendants- Appellants,

M bs, N ona M ae George, et al.,

Plaintiff s-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS APPELLEES

J o h n  W alker

1304-B "Wright Street 
Little Bock, Arkansas

J ack Greenberg 
J ames M. N abrit III 
M ichael  M eltsner  
S h eila  R u sh

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees



I N D E X

PAGE

Points and Authorities .................................................. 2

A rgum ent—

The District Court Properly Denied Defendants’ 
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking 
Desegregation of State Training Schools ............ 3

Conclusion  ......................................................................................  7

Citations

Cases:
Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31 ...................................  3
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) .... 3, 4

Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 220 
F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1955) aff’d 350 U.S. 877 ..........  3

Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 90 ...................................  3

Harris v. Settle, 322 F.2d 908 (1963) ......................... 5
Holmes v. City of Atlanta, 350 U.S. 879 ..................... 3

Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U.S. 61 (1963) ..................... 3

Lee v. Tahash, 352 F.2d 970, 971, 973 (8th Cir. 1965) .... 4

New Orleans City Park Improvement Asso. v. Detiege,
358 U.S. 54 ..................................... ..........................  3

Nichols v. McGee, 169 F. Supp. 721 (N .D . Calif. 1959) .. 4

Simkins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, 323 F.2d 
959 (4th Cir. 1963), cert. den. 376 U.S. 938 3



11

PAGE

Singleton v. Board of Commissioners of State Insti­
tutions, 356 F.2d 771 (5th Cir. 1966) ..................... 3

State Athletic Commission v. Dorsey, 359 U.S. 533 .... 3
State Board of Public Welfare, et al. v. Robert Myers,

224 Md. 246, 167 A.2d 765 ..........................................  3

Turner v. Memphis, 369 U.S. 350 ................................ 3

Statutes:
Civil Eights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000h ..........   3
Ark. Stat. Ann. §46.....................................................  5
Ark. Stat. Ann. §305 ..   5
Ark. Stat. Ann. §310..   6
Ark. Stat. Ann. §321 .........................    5
Ark. Stat. Ann. §334 6



(Emtrt nl Appeals
F oe th e  E ig h t h  Oikcuit

No. 18,536

T h e  B oard of M anagers of th e  A rkansas T raining  
S chool for B oys at W rightsville , et al.,

Defendants-Appellants,

-v-

M rs. N ona M ae George, et al.,

Plaintiff s-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS APPELLEES



2

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

The District Court Properly Denied Defendants’ 
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking De­
segregation of State Training Schools.

Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31;
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 

(1954);
Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 

220 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1955) aff’d 350 U.S. 877; 
Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 90;
Harris v. Settle, 322 F.2d 908 (1963);
Holmes v. City of Atlanta, 350 U.S. 879; 
Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U.S. 61 (1963) ;
Lee v. Tahash, 352 F.2d 970, 971, 973 (8th Cir. 

1965);
New Orleans City Park Improvement Asso. v. 

Detiege, 358 U.S. 54;
Nichols v. McGee, 169 F. Supp. 721 (N.D. Calif. 

1959);
Simkins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, 

323 F.2d 959 (4th Cir. 1963), cert. den. 376 
U.S. 938;

Singleton v. Board of Commissioners of State 
Institutions, 356 F.2d 771 (5th Cir. 1966); 

State Athletic Commission v. Dorsey, 359 U.S. 
533;

State Board of Public Welfare, et al. v. Robert 
Myers, 224 Md. 246, 167 A.2d 765;

Turner v. Memphis, 369 U.S. 350.
Civil Eights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000b.
Ark. Stat. Ann. §§46-305, 321.
Ark. Stat. Ann. §§46-310, 334.



3

ARGUMENT

The District Court Properly Denied Defendants’ 
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking De­
segregation of State Training Schools.

Under Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) 
and subsequent decisions,1 it is clear that a state may not 
constitutionally require the segregation of public facilities. 
Singleton v. Board of Commissioners of State Institutions, 
356 F.2d 771, 772 (5th Cir. 1966) held that reformatories 
fell within the principle of Brown:

“Twelve years ago, in Brown v. Board of Education 
of Topeka, 1954, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 
873, the Supreme Court effectively foreclosed the ques­
tion of whether a state may maintain racially segre­
gated schools. The principle extends to all institutions 
controlled or operated by the state.”

Similarly in State Board of Public Welfare, et al. v. Robert 
Myers, 224 Md. 246, 167 A.2d 765, the Court of Appeals 
of Maryland, citing Brown, ordered the desegregation of 
Maryland training schools. As state institutions for the 
education and rehabilitation of dependent and delinquent 
juveniles, Arkansas’ training schools must desegregate and 
the district court properly denied defendants’ motion to 
dismiss.

1 Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U.S. 61. See also Title I I I  of the Civil 
Eights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000b (Desegregation of public facilities 
required by federal law.) Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Balti­
more, 220 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1955), aff’d 350 U.S. 877; Holmes v. City 
of Atlanta, 350 U.S. 879; Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 90; Bailey v. Pat­
terson, 369 U.S. 31; Turner v. Memphis, 369 U.S. 350; New Orleans City 
Park Improvement Asso. v. Detiege, 358 U.S. 54; State Athletic Com­
mission v. Dorsey, 359 U.S. 533; Simlcins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial 
Hospital, 323 F.2d 959 (4th Cir. 1963), cert. den. 376 U.S. 938.



4 '

Defendants do not deny that the institutions under their 
control and supervision are public facilities. Defendants 
argue only that the schools are “penal” rather than 
“rehabilitative and educational” and that a supposed doc­
trine of federal non-intervention in the operation of state 
penal institutions permits continued operation of separate, 
racial schools.

It is significant that the cases relied upon by defendants 
in support of their argument of federal non-intervention 
in state penal affairs involve prisons rather than reform 
schools. Unless defendants are prepared to equate the 
educational and rehabilitative institutions under their con­
trol with prisons, their argument of non-intervention must 
fail.

Even assuming arguendo that these institutions are to 
be labelled prisons, no case cited by defendants even 
remotely suggests that federal courts are barred from 
protecting the constitutional right of prisoners to freedom 
from state imposed segregation. Nichols v. McGee, 169 
F. Supp. 721 (N.D. Calif. 1959) which denied the relief 
sought here, was decided on the ground that Brown did 
not extend to non-educational facilities, a view which is 
completely inconsistent with Supreme Court decisions.2 
More important, the Eighth Circuit cases cited by defen­
dants do not preclude relief from the denial of the rights 
asserted by plaintiffs for they involve only the question 
of federal reluctance to intervene in disciplinary aspects 
of prison life. See Lee v. Tahash, 352 F.2d 970, 971, 973 
(8th Cir. 1965), where a prisoner challenged restrictions 
on his correspondence privileges, and the court distin­
guished between day-to-day discipline and the denial of 
federally secured rights:

2 See cases cited in footnote 1, supra, p. 3.



5

“As to the justiciability of this and other elements 
of sentence-execution generally, it is settled doctrine 
that except in extreme cases the courts may not inter­
fere with the conduct of a prison, with its regulations 
and their enforcement, or with its discipline.

 ̂  ̂ ^
“In all of the things of which appellant complains, 

he has shown no right secured to him. by federal law 
which has been denied or infringed.”

Similarly, Harris v. Settle, 322 F.2d 908 (8th Cir. 1963) 
involved the segregation of a Negro prisoner after a 
prison fight. The court considered the prison action dis­
ciplinary and properly within the discretion of prison 
officials.

There is, moreover, scant support in the Arkansas stat­
utes or elsewhere for the characterization of the training 
schools as penal institutions. Indeed, the Arkansas statute 
specifically provides that defendant schools are “training 
and educational institutions . . . entitled to all the rights 
and privileges of any other accredited institution of this 
state” and that they “should not be part of a penal system 
of this state nor shall [they] be construed as penal insti­
tutions.” 8 The statute also obliterates any distinction be­
tween the delinquent and dependent or neglected child, 
requiring that:

“The order of commitment shall not state that the 
child is delinquent or dependent, nor shall it state 
the offense of which the child is guilty, but merely 
state that the person named has been adjudged to be 
a proper person for commitment.” 4

3 Ark. Stat. Ann. §§46-305, 321.
4 Ark. Stat. Ann. §46-371.



6

Elsewhere, the statute clearly indicates the educational 
and rehabilitative nature of detention by defendant insti­
tutions. The statute requires that juveniles receive educa­
tional, moral, industrial, domestic and farm training. Most 
important, the statute requires that the course of study 
taught at defendant institutions “conform to the minimum 
standards prescribed for other public schools of the state” 
and that the students shall receive the same credit as 
students “in other public schools.” 5

Continued racial segregation is likely to undermine the 
very rehabilitation which is the basic purpose of these 
institutions. Segregation breeds feelings of inferiority and 
lack of dignity, conditions Avhich obviously impede a suc­
cessful return to society.

5 Ark. Stat. Ann. §§46-310, 334 provide in full:
" . . .  They shall receive educational, moral, industrial, domestic 

and farm training. The superintendent shall prepare or cause to he 
prepared courses o£ study, including regular or special courses in 
vocational education suited to the age and capacity of the boy, and 
for this purpose competent teachers, under the direction of the board, 
shall be employed by the superintendent. The courses shall include 
extra-currieular activities. The courses of study taught shall at least 
conform to the minimum standards prescribed for other public schools 
of the state and the students shall receive the same credit for com­
pleting the courses as is received by students in other public schools. 
In addition, the boys shall be taught such useful trades as the board 
may direct.”



7

CONCLUSION

The order of the District Court denying defendants’ 
motion to dismiss should be affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

J o h n  W alker
1304-B Wright Street 
Little Rock, Arkansas

J ack Greenberg 
J ames M. JSTabrit III 
M ichael  M eltsner  
S h eila  R u sh

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees



MEILEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. C.«^gi**> 219