Jenkins v. Missouri Brief of Appellees
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1985

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Jenkins v. Missouri Brief of Appellees, 1985. 557aa6dd-b59a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/ec934b96-d2e7-49e7-a963-0a8b1d22bf4e/jenkins-v-missouri-brief-of-appellees. Accessed July 09, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 85-1765WM NO. 85-1749WM NO. 85-1974WM KALIMA JENKINS, et al., Appellants, v . STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Missouri, Western Division The Honorable Russell G. Clark, Chief Judge BRIEF OF APPELLEES HICKMAN MILLS CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF JACKSON COUNTY, AND ITS SUPERINTENDENT, BLAINE E. STECK, Defendants-Appellees. JEFFREY L. LUCAS KURANER & SCHWEGLER 500 Commerce Bank Building 922 Walnut Street Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 221-3443 ATTORNEYS FOR HICKMAN MILLS CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 JACKSON COUNTY, AND ITS SUPERINTENDENT, BLAINE E. STECK. SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The Hickman Mills School District is one of the eleven school district defendants which appellants would like to involve in an interdistrict remedy in this school desegregation case. Appellants continue to pursue the dissolution of this defendant despite their knowledge of the fact that the Hickman Mills School District has had a steady increasing black enrollment which had reached 18.02$ at the time of trial, and which is now 21.6$. The District Court found that Hickman Mills School District had no blacks living within its boundaries prior to 1954, that there were no black tranfers or dual schools for blacks and whites in this District, and that Hickman Mills School District has always operated a unitary school system. The 18.02$ black enrollment in Hickman Mills School District in 1983-1984 (now 21.6$) is powerful evidence that no defendants actions have had a significant segregative effect in the District. There were no findings by the District Court that any actions or inactions of the Hickman Mills School District had any significant effect on any other school district. It is noteworthy that the number of black students in KCMSD has been decreasing while the number of black students in the Hickman Mills School District has been increasing. The District Court's order dismissing Hickman Mills School District and it superintendent should be affirmed. Because of the importance of these issues, Hickman Mills School District requests 10 minutes for its oral argument. (i) TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary and Request for Oral Argument.......................... (i) Table of Contents.............................. (ii) Table of Cases and Authorities............................... (ii) Statement of the Issues......................................(iii) Statement of the Case............................................ 1 Argument............................................. 4 Conclusion...............................-....................... 5 TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES Anderson v.City of Bessemer City, North Carolina, 105 S. Ct. 1504 ( 1985) .... ............ . . . ................ 1 McDowell v.Safeway Stores, Inc., 753 F. 2d 716 (8th Cir. 19B5) .....................................1 Milliken v . Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974)...................... 4,5 Lee v.Lee County Board of Education, $39" F.2d ”1243 (5th Cir. 19^1) .....................................4 Rule 52(a) F.R. Civ. P ............................................1 (ii) STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Hickman Mills Consolidated School District No. 1 of Jackson County and its Superintendent (!,HMSD”) adopts the preliminary statement and statement of the issues set forth in the consolidated response filed by all appellee school districts except KCMSD. An additional issue relating to HMSD is as follows: Absent a finding of intentional racially discriminatory acts or omissions by HMSD having a significant segregative effect in its own or another district or of racially discriminatory acts or omission by any other district having a significant effect in HMSD, did in the District Court err in dismissing HMSD, and in failing to require an interdistrict remedy involving HMSD? Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974) Lee v. Lee County Board of Education, 639 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir. 1981) . (iii) STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants have not challenged as clearly erroneous the fact findings of the District Court with respect to HMSD in their brief. Even had appellants challenged such fact findings, there is no evidence or credible argument in their briefs that such fact findings are clearly erroneous as required by the recently amended Rule 52(a) F.R. Civ. P. As a result, such fact findings may not be set aside. The strictness applicable to the "clearly erroneous" standard is reinforced in recent decisions of both this Court and the Supreme Court."' Despite the lack of a challenge as to the fact findings regarding HMSD, appellants set forth their own slanted and incomplete version of the facts without bothering to advise the Court that such facts were not the facts as found by the District Court.2 The unchallenged fact findings of the District Court with respect to the HMSD are set forth in the District Court’s June 5, 1984 General Memorandum and Order at pages 54-59 (pages 8-90 through B-95 of Appellants Joint Addendum B) [hereinafter "6-5-84 Opinion"] and are incorporated herein. Certain unchallenged fact findings particularly relevant to the determination of this appeal are set forth below. See Anderson v.City of Bessemer City, North Carolina, 105 S. Ct. 1504 ( 1985) ("findings of fact not "clearly erroneous" if "plausible") and McDowell v.Safeway Stores, Inc., 753 F.2d 716 (8th Cir. 1985). p For example, appellants claim in footnote 64 that HMSD opposed apartments and multi-family housing. Appellants do not contest, but conveniently ignore, the District Court’s specific findings that the opposition was tax related and not race related. See 6-5-84 Opinion at 59. --- -1- A. HICKMAN MILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES NOT RELATED TO RACE. The Hickman Mills School District was created in 1902 as a result of a consolidation law passed in 1902, (6-5-84 Opinion at 54, Nesbit Depo. at 49) more than 50 years prior to Brown v._Board of Education. Its boundaries are essentially the same today as they were in 1902.3 Given such facts, there was, of course, no evidence that the boundaries of the HMSD were deliberately drawn on the basis of race. Hickman Mills School District is not contiguous to KCMSD (6—5— 84 Opinion at 55). The Spainhower Plan which HMSD opposed for local control reasons would have joined HMSD with Grandview, Lee’s Summit and Lone Jack, which would nob have had any effect on the racial composition of HMSD or KCMSD. (6-5-84 Opinion at 57). B. HICKMAN MILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD NO BLACK RESIDENTS PRIOR TO 1954 THAT COULD HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY A DUAL SCHOOL SYSTEM. The overwhelming evidence was that there were no blacks living within the boundaries of the HMSD at any time prior to 1954 and the mid-1960’s (6-5-85 Opinion at 55, P. Ex. 1785, Wall Depos. Vol. 1 at 35, Nesbit Depo at 19).^ Plaintiff’s own expert historian, Dr. James 3 Two disputes in the 1960's concerning segments of its boundaries (with Grandview and Center School Districts) were neither racially motivated nor had any racial discriminatory effect. (6-5-84 Opn. at 54). ̂ Although appellants have not preserved the question as to whether the District Court's finding (6-5-85 Opinion at 55) that no blacks resided in the HMSD prior to Brown was incorrect and notwithstanding the fact that, appellant's own expert historian - Dr. Anderson could find no reliable data that would place any blacks in the area of the HMSD prior to 1954 (T. 4620), Plaintiff's assert, by footnote, (8) that HMSD had black settlements prior to 1954. Such an assertion by appellants in the face of their own evidence and expert's testimony to the contrary cannot be taken seriously. Exhibit 1784 relied upon by Plaintiffs is a 1932 hearsay upon hearsay letter which the District Court indicated "had no probative value whatsoever" (T. 3504). Having convinced themselves, appellants mislead this Court by implying on P. 11 of their brief that HMSD had black students prior to 1954 but ran them off by 1954. The statement lacks any credible foundation. -2- Anderson admitted under cross-examination that although he had searched, he was unable to find any reliable data that would place any blacks in the area of the HMSD prior to 1954 (T. 4620). Without black residents, there could not have been transfers of black school children to any other district, nor could HMSD have operated dual schools for black and white children, and the District Court so found (6-5-84 Opinion at 55). This finding is uncontested by appellants. Further there was no evidence that the lack of a black school within HMSD precluded any blacks from settling in Hickman Mills. (Id. at 55) Hickman Mills has always and continues to operate a unitary school system (Id. at 55). C. HICKMAN MILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD A BLACK ENROLLMENT OF 18.02% AT THE TIME OF TRIAL. The black enrollment percentage in the Hickman Mills School District went from less than 1$ in 1968 to 18.02$ in 1983. (6-5-84 Opinion at 55, P. Ex. 530, 2967). This appellee represents that the black enrollment percentage in HMSD for the 1985-86 school year is 21.6$ and that the total minority enrollment for the 1985-86 school year is 24.1$ in HMSD. The 18.02$ black enrollment figure for the 1983-84 school year exceeded the 14.53$ black population of the Missouri portion of the SMSA (P. Ex. 32A) by over three percentage points (6-5-84 Opinion at 55). Plaintiff's own expert statistican, John Kain, admitted under cross-examination that the HMSD had reached the percentage black enrollment he predicted for HMSD on P.Ex. 1265P, if race were not a factor (6-5-84 Opinion, Tr. 8060, P. Ex. 53G, 1265P). -3- D. NO EFFECT. The District Court specifically found that the continual and substantial increases in the number of blacks enrolled in the Hickman Mills School District is convincing evidence that there'is no barrier to blacks moving into HMSD, nor is there any present effect of any past practices which may have had discouraging effect on black moves (6-5-84 Opinion at 59). ARGUMENT REGARDLESS OF THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF MILLIKEN WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER THE EFFECT OF THE STATES VIOLATIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED WITH RESPECT TO HMSD IN DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF MANDATORY INTERDISTRICT RELIEF, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY DEFENDANTS VIOLATIONS OR ACTIONS HAVE HAD ANY EFFECT ON THIS DISTRICT OR THAT ACTIONS OF THIS DISTRICT HAD ANY SEGREGATIVE EFFECT ON ANOTHER DISTRICT, AND HMSD IS THEREFORE NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY SUBJECT TO PARTICIPATION IN AN INTERDISTRICT REMEDY. As demonstrated by the consolidated brief of appellee school districts, a careful reading of Milliken required the District Court to interpret Milliken as it did.^ However even if this Court adopts appellants legal theories with respect to Milliken, the evidence requires affirmance of the District Court’s dismissal of HMSD from this action. The undisputed evidence is that with a black enrollment of 18.02% in 1983-84 (now 21 .6%) the black enrollment percentage in HMSD exceeds the black population percentage in the Missouri SMSA (6-5-84 Opinion at 55), and well exceeds the black population of the entire Missouri- Kansas SMSA. This fact, when coupled with the steady growth of HMSD’s black population (P. Ex. 53G) over the past 17 years, is dispositive of all of appellant’s assertions with respect to liability of the ̂ See Lee v. Lee County Board of Education, 639 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir. ipT) . - 4 - HMSD. Such steady growth and such percentages of black population simply could not occur if there were "significant segregative effects" in HMSD of actions, violations or alleged violations by HMSD, the State of Missouri, the other school district defendants, the federal defendants, or any other party or non-party. There are no "significant segregative effects" of anyones actions in HMSD (6-5-84 Opinion at 59). Just the opposite is true - the movement of blacks into HMSD is having a desegregative effect on KCMSD. With no interdistrict violation by HMSD and with no significant segregative effects on HMSD of other parties' alleged, but unproven, interdistrict violations, Milliken teaches that there is no constitutional wrong calling for an interdistrict remedy. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 745 ( 1974). CONCLUSION The Hickman Mills School District has become a well integrated school system without the involvement of the courts. There is no legal reason to end the 83 year independent existence of this school district. For all of the reasons stated above and in the consolidated brief of the dismissed school district defendants, Hickman Mills School District's dismissal by the District Court must be affirmed. Respectfully submitted, JEFFREY L. LUCAS KURANER & SCHWEGLER 500 Commerce Bank Building 922 Walnut Street Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 221-3443 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES HICKMAN MILLS CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF JACKSON COUNTY AND ITS SUPERINTENDENT -5-