Amended Complaint and Prayer for Relief

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al. , )
)Plaintiffs, )
)vs. )
)WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, )
)Defendants, )
)and )
)DENISE MAGDOWSKI, )
)Defendants-Intervenors, )
)and )
)ALLEN PARK, et al., )
)Defendants-Intervenors, )
)and )
)KERRY GREEN, et al., )
)Defendants-Intervenors, )
)and )
)WAYNE COUNTY INTERMEDIATE )

SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., )
)Added Defendants. )
)

____________________________________ )

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 35257

AMENDED COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO EVIDENCE
AND

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

I . Prior Proceedings

1. Pertinent prior proceedings and decisions 
in this cause in the Court of Appeals are set forth in 
Bradley v. Milliken, 433 F.2d 897 (6th Cir. 1970); Brad­
ley v. Milliken, 438 F.2d 897 (6th Cir. 1971); Bradley 
v. Milliken, ______  F.2d ______  (6th Cir. Feb. 23, 1972),



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )
)

Plaintiffs, )
)

vs. )
)

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, )
)Defendants, )
)iand )
)DENISE MAGDOWSKI, )
) CIVIL ACTION

Defendants-Intervenors, )
) NO. 35257

and )
)

ALLEN PARK, et al., )
)Defendants-Intervenors, )
)

and )
)KERRY GREEN, et al., )
)Defendants-Intervenors, )
)

and )
)WAYNE COUNTY INTERMEDIATE )

SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., )
)

Added Defendants. )
)
)

AMENDED COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO EVIDENCE
AND

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

I . Prior Proceedings

1. Pertinent prior proceedings and decisions 
in this cause in the Court of Appeals are set forth in 
Bradley v. Milliken, 433 F.2d 897 (6th Cir. 1970); Brad­
ley v. Milliken, 438 F.2d 897 (6th Cir. 1971); Bradley 
v. Milliken, ______ F.2d ______  (6th Cir. Feb. 23, 1972)



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )
)Plaintiffs, )
)vs. )
)WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, )
)Defendants, )
)and )
)DENISE MAGDOWSKI, )
) CIVIL ACTION

Defendants-Intervenors, )
) NO. 35257and )
)ALLEN PARK, et al., )
)Defendants--Intervenors, )
)and )
)KERRY GREEN, et al., )
)Defendants-Intervenors, )
)and )
)WAYNE COUNTY INTERMEDIATE )

SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., )
)Added Defendants. )
)
)

AMENDED COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO EVIDENCE * 1
AND

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

I. Prior Proceedings

1. Pertinent prior proceedings and decisions 
in this cause in the Court of Appeals are set forth in 
Bradley v. Milliken, 433 F.2d 897 (6th Cir. 1970); Brad­
ley v. Milliken, 438 F.2d 897 (6th Cir. 1971); Bradley 
v. Milliken, ______  F.2d ______  (6th Cir. Feb. 23, 1972),



V  I
cert, denied,     U.S. , 41 U.S.L.W. 3175
( Oct. 10, 1972); Bradley v. Milliken, __________
F.2d _____ (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 1972) and Bradley v. Milliken,

F.2d ____ , (6th Cir. en banc, June 12, 1973). The
pertinent prior proceedings and decisions in this cause in 
the District Court are set forth in September 3, 1970 Ruling 
on Application for Preliminary Injunction, Motion to 
Intervene, and Motion to Dismiss, aff1d in part and rev'd in 
part, 433 F.2d 897; December 3, 1970 Ruling on School Plans 
submitted, remanded and instructions, 438 F.2d 897; Feb. 16, 
1971 Rulings and Order on Class Action and Standing; Ruling 
on Issue of Segregation, 338 F.Supp. 482 (E.D.Mich. 1971)
a f f' d en banc, _______ F.2d _____ (June 12, 1973) ; Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Detroit-Only Plans of De­
segregation, ___ ___ F.Supp. _____  (E.D. Mich. March 28, 1972),
aff'd en banc, _____ F. 2d _____ (June 12, 1973) ; Ruling on
Propriety of a Metropolitan Remedy to Accomplish Desegrega­
tion of the Public Schools of the City of Detroit,
F.Supp. , (E.D. Mich. June 12, 1973) , af f1 d en banc in
part, and vacated en banc as set forth in _______ F.2d ______
(June 12, 1973); Ruling on Desegregation Area and Develop­
ment of Plan, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in
Support Thereof, ______  F.Supp. _____ (E.D.Mich. June 14,
1972) , vacated eri banc in part and reinstated eri banc in part 
as set forth in ______ F.2d _______ (June 12, 1973) ; Order for
Acquisition of Transportation, _______ F.Supp. ' (E.D.Mich.
July 11, 1972), vacated en banc as set forth in ________  F.2d
_______  (June 12, 1973).

2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked 
under 28 U.S.C. §1331(a), 1343(3) and (4), this being a suit 
to redress the deprivation under color of Michigan law, sta­
tute, regulation, custom and/or usage of rights, privileges 
and immunities secured by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth

-2-



Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and/or 
by 42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1983, 1988 and 2000d providing for the 
equal rights of all citizens and persons and for the same 
rights to the full and equal benefits of all laws and pro­
ceedings for the security of persons and property as is 
enjoyed by white citizens and persons. This is an action 
for injunctive relief, and for declaratory and other relief 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201, 2202. The matter in contro­
versy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or 
value of ten-thousand dollars ($10,000.00).

3. The pleadings and evidence already of record 
in this cause are now and have been on file in the District 
Court and available for inspection and/or copying by any 
interested party. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference 
the entirety of their original Complaint, in this cause, 
filed August 18, 1970, as though set forth verbatim herein.
A copy is attached herewith as Exhibit A.

II. DEFENDANTS
4. The orginial Detroit School District Defen­

dants are the Board of Education of the City of Detroit, 
its Superintendent (now Charles Wolfe), and the members of 
the Board of Education.

5. The original State Defendants are Governor 
William J. Milliken, Attorney General Frank J. Kelley, the 
Michigan State Board of Education and its Superintendent,
John W. Porter.

6. The intervening Detroit defendants are (a) the 
Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, American Federa­
tion of Teachers, AFL-CIO and (b) Denise Magdowski, et al.

7. The intervening suburban defendants are Allen 
Park Public Schools, School District of the City of Berkeley,

-3-



Brandon Schools, Centerline Public Schools, Cherry Hill 
School District, Chippewa Valley Public Schools, School 
District of the City of Clawson, Crestwood School District, 
Dearborn Public Schools, Dearborn Heights School District 
No. 7, East Detroit Public Schools, School District of the 
City of Ferndale, Flat Rock Community Schools, Garden City 
Public Schools, Gibralter School District, School District 
of the City of Hazel Park, Intermediate School District of 
the County of Macomb, Lake Shore Public Schools, Lakeview 
Public Schools, The Lamphere Schools, Lincoln Park Public 
Schools, Madison District Public Schools, Melvindale-North 
Allen Park School District, School District of North Dear­
born Heights, Novi Community School District, Oak Park 
School District, Oxford Area Community Schools, Redford 
Union School District No. 1, Richmond Community Schools, 
School District of the City of River Rouge, Riverview Com­
munity School District, Roseville Public Schools, South 
Lake Schools, Taylor School District, Warren Consolidated 
Schools, Warren Woods Public Schools, Wayne-Westland Com­
munity Schools, Woodhaven School District, Wyandotte Public 
Schools, Grosse Pointe Schools, Southfield Public Schools, 
School District of the City of Royal Oak and Kerry Green,
et aij SoHOGc ihsrfi.ier tv*, C-itN o p  H eme.

8. The added state defendant is State Treasurer 
Allison Green.

9. The added suburban defendants are (a) the
Wayne County Intermediate School District, the Oakland County 
Intermediate School District, La1?^vrew--Publirc "Schoolrs, 
Fitzgerald Public Schools, Fraser Public Schools, tfa-rper 
Woods Dist^jrQt. Van Dyke Public Schools, Hamtramck
School District, School District of the City of Troy, High­
land Park City School District, School District of the City

-4-



of Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills School District, Farmington
Public School District, Clarenceville School District, West
Bloom field School District, Livonia Public School District,
South Bedford School District, Romulus Township School
District, Inkster School District, Westwood Community School
District, Ecorse Public School District, Southgate Community
School District, Rjrverv4aw Communrlty---Ŝ ehoo 1 Drsirriet^ Holly
Area Schools, Huron Valley Schools, Lake Orion Community
School District, Rochester Community School, Walled Lake
Consolidated School District, Avondale School District,
Clarkston Community Schools, South Lyon Community Schools,
Waterford School District, Mt. Clemens Community School
District, Anchor Bay School District, Romeo Community Schools,
Clintondale Community Schools, L ’anse Creuse Public Schools,
South Lake—S-ehoels, Utica Community Schools, Armada Area
Schools, New Haven Community Schools, Plymouth Community
School District, Van Buren Public School District, Grosse
lie Township School District, TjrentonvPublic School District; k)Oftn* 
V1LU' 5<^toeL v i ^ T i t c r ' Hoiterv S chool. 0&.t IL>c t  %
(b) all other school districts, if any, in the tri-county
area except the School District of the City of Pontiac; (c) 
the Boards of Education and Members of the Boards of Educa­
tion in each school district in the tri-county area except 
the School District of the City of Pontiac; (d) the Superin­
tendents of each school district in the tri-county area except 
the School District of the City of Pontiac.

III. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS TO CONFORM TO THE EVIDENCE

10. Various actions by the original Detroit and 
State defendants and their agents, in some instances supported 
by or in conjunction with State laws have, wholly apart from 
any actions of the suburban defendants or any of them, signif­
icantly contributed to the containment of black children in

-5-



racially identifiable, virtually all-black schools operated 
in the City of Detroit. The pattern of official segregation 
and containment has been an expanding one, as the black com­
munity within Detroit has expanded, but with the consistent 
result of establishing and maintaining racially identifiable 
black Detroit schools surrounded by racially identifiable, 
virtually all-white schools throughout the tri-county area. 
These actions have included, but are not limited to, new 
school construction; discriminatory reimbursement of trans­
portation funds; the validation and reimposition of the 
boundaries of the Detroit School District, imposition of a 
segregatory pupil assignment policy for the Detroit Public 
Schools, creation of segregated school regional boundaries, 
recission of steps toward desegregation, and the particular 
carve-out of regional school governance units wholly within 
the Detroit School District by Act 48 of the Public Acts of 
1970; the transfer and/or transportation of students across 
school districts and within school districts with the purpose 
and/or effect of official school segregation; limitations on 
operation of bonding authority; and the operation of state 
aid and financial limitations, in conjunction with other 
official actions of segregation which left the Detroit School 
District virtually bankrupt and further identified it as a 
black school district. This consistent and repeated discrim­
ination by State officials and agencies, manifested by, among 
others, the acts listed herein, is causally related in a 
significant manner to the present, nearly total segregation 
of black children within the tri-county area in virtually all­
black public schools within the jurisdiction of the original 
Detroit defendants, their agents and successors. In carrying 
out this pattern and practice of official segregation, the 
State and its agencies have advantaged themselves of existing 
school district lines and jurisdictional boundaries with the



effect of further entrenching the containment of black stu­
dents in black Detroit schools; without any reference to 
any actions of suburban defendants, the prevailing pattern 
of racially identifiable, virtually all-white schools in the 
suburbs of Detroit is a result, in part, of the official 
policies of containment and segregation of black children in 
racially identifiable and virtually all-black schools within 
the City of Detroit, as described above.

whose presence or cooperation is necessary to remedy the 
current but expanding pattern of official, substantial racial 
public school segregation described above. Suburban school 
districts —  like the Detroit School District, and like 
intermediate, regional and indeed all local school districts —  
are subordinate governmental entities created and fashioned by 
the State. Each is given varying powers to assist in carrying 
out the State responsibility for education; the size of each 
varies and the boundaries of each are irregular, little related 
to the boundaries of other governmental units, and are often 
crossed by school children or school personnel in order to 
further various school programs. The present school district 
boundaries serve no compelling state interest. The State 
Board of Education has considerable authority and power —  
including, but not limited to, distribution of funds, accredi­
tation or other approval, and general supervision and 
responsibility for public education throughout Michigan —  at 
its disposal to assist in planning and implementing any 
desegregation plan for the Detroit public schools which may 
extend beyond, or involve districts or schools located without, 
the present geographic boundaries of the City of Detroit. The 
State Board and Superintendent have the authority to require 
the elimination of segregation among and within school districts 
in Michigan.

11. State agencies control the instrumentalities

-7-



12. The Detroit metropolitan area has grown as a 
series of interrelated and overlapping economic, recreation, 
service, and governmental units with many persons locating 
in the suburbs but working and enjoying services in Detroit, 
and others living in Detroit but working and enjoying ser­
vices in the suburbs. The school and housing opportunities 
for black citizens in the Detroit Metropolitan Area, however, 
have been and remain restricted by discriminatory govern­
mental and private action, to separate and distinct areas 
within the City and a few other areas of historic racial 
containment in the metropolitan area.

13. Plans of desegregation limited to the present
geographic limits of the City of Detroit will accomplish more 
actual desegregation than now exists within that school system, 
but in the context of available alternatives not limited to 
those geographic boundaries, such plans: (a) will not achieve
the effective desegregation of the public schools in Detroit, 
(b) will not alter the racially identifiably black identity 
now1 shared by most Detroit schools, but will rather extend 
that identity to all Detroit schools. In light of realistic 
and feasible desegregation measures not limited to Detroit 
which are capable of being taken now, plans of desegregation 
limited to Detroit do not hold promise of establishing "just 
schools" in place of the present "white" and "black" schools
in that school system, and such plans consequently will not 
remedy the constitutional violation which is the subject of 
this lawsuit nor prevent its recurrence.

14. A far more effective plan of desegregation is 
constitutionally required; considering the practicalities of 
the situation, the only feasible and effective plan must 
involve crossing the boundary lines between the Detroit

■ I.

1

-8-



school district and other school districts in the tri-county 
area for the limited purpose of effectuating meaningful de­
segregation.

15. The pupils, teachers, resources and facilities 
of the following defendant local and intermediate school 
districts are necessary in this cause for the limited purpose 
of accomplishing the effective desegregation of the Detroit 
public schools now and hereafter, including, but not limited 
to, inclusion in the desegregation area for pupil and staff 
assignment:

Wayne County Intermediate? Oakland County 
Intermediate? Macomb County Intermediate?
Lake Shore? Roseville City, East Detroit 
City? South Lake? Grosse Pointe? Lakeview?
Centerline? Fitzgerald? Warren Woods?
Fraser? Harper Woods? Van Dyke? Warren 
Consolidated? Hazel Park City? Hamtramck?
Lamphere? Madison Heights? City of Troy?
Ferndale City? Berkeley City? Highland 
Park? Royal Oak City? Clawson City?
Birmingham? Oak Park City? Southfield?
Bloomfield Hills? Farmington? South 
Bedford? North Dearborn Heights? Crestwood?
Cherry Hill? Bedford Union? Taylor? Dear­
born City? Dearborn Heights? Fairlane?
Romulus Township? Inkster City? Wayne- 
Westland Community? Westwood Community?
Ecorse? Allen Park? Southgate Community?
River Rouge City? Riverview Community?
Wyandotte City? Lincoln Park City? x ,Melvindale-North A l l e n : i ^ r x i c i  j
OJ esT S cgcnn Ist o (\ j  iA  A ^  ) CL» -

16. The pupils, teachers, resources and facilities 
of the following defendant school districts are necessary for 
the limited purpose of accomplishing the effective desegre­
gation of the Detroit public schools now and hereafter, 
including, but not limited to, review of any additions to 
school building capacity and staff hiring to determine their 
present or potential effect on the school desegregation plan:

Novi Community? Holly Area? Huron Valley?
Lake Orion Community? Oxford Area Community? 
Rochester Community? Walled Lake Consolidated? 
Avondale? Brandon Township? Clarkston Commun­
ity? South Lyon Community? Waterford?



Mt. Clemens Community; Anchor Bay; Richmond 
Community; Romeo Community; Chippewa Valley; 
Clintondale; L'Anse Vreuse; South Lake-;
Utica Community; Armada Area; New Haven 
Community; Plymouth Community; Huron; North- 
ville; Van Buren; Flat Rock Community;
Gibraltar; Grosse lie Township; Trenton 
Public Schools; Woodhaven.

17. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, as 
additional allegations to conform to the evidence, the 
Findings of Fact in Support of Desegregation Area and Develop­
ment of Plans issued by the District Court June 14, 1972, 
paragraphs 1 to 91. (These Findings of Fact are attached as 
Exhibit B.)

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that the 
Court order a speedy hearing of this action according to law 
and the guidelines established by the Sixth Circuit in its 
Opinion and Order of June 12, 1973, and upon such hearing:

a. Enter a decree to remedy the segregation 
found including an interim remedy;

b. Enter a decree approving an effective 
metropolitan plan of desegregation for the Detroit Public 
Schools which promises realistically to work now and here­
after to maintain a racially unified, non-discriminatory 
system of public schooling. Such plan should include the 
utilization of all reasonable and feasible methods and tools 
of desegregation as set forth in the guidelines established 
by the Sixth Circuit in its decision en banc of June 12, 1973, 
and the controlling decisions of the Supreme Court; provided, 
however, pursuant to the decision of the Sixth Circuit, that 
existing governmental and organizational structures shall, in 
any case, be maintained to the extent possible, pending a 
reasonable opportunity for the Michigan Legislature to act
to alter same;

c. Enter a decree enjoining defendants to
implement no later than the 1974-75 school year and maintain 
thereafter such an effective metropolitan plan for the



desegregation of the Detroit Public Schools;
d. Award to plaintiffs' attorneys reasonable*

counsel fees for services rendered and to be rendered in, 
and reimbursement for all out-of-pocket expenses of, this 
action;

e. Retain continuing jurisdiction of this 
cause and grant such other and additional relief as may ap­
pear to the Court to be equitable and just.

PAUL R. DIMOND 
906 Rose Avenue 
Ann Arbor, Michigan

48104
J. HAROLD FLANNERY 

CENTER FOR LAW & 
EDUCATION 
Larsen Hall 
14 Appian Way 
Cambridge, Mass.

02138
JACK GREENBERG
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 

10019

Respectfully submitted,

LOUIS R. LUCAS
WILLIAM E. CALDWELL

RATNER, SUGARMON & LUCAS 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

NATHANIEL JONES 
1790 Broadway 
New York, New York 10019

ELLIOTT HALL
950 Guardian Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

I
-11-

.. ... •