U.S. v. State of Ark.
| Decision Date | 29 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 5,Nos. 85-1177,J,No. 8,No. 2,P,No. 1,85-1290,T,5,8,2,1,s. 85-1177 |
| Citation | 791 F.2d 1573 |
| Parties | , 32 Ed. Law Rep. 915 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. STATE OF ARKANSAS; Arkansas Department of Education, Dr. Don R. Roberts, Director; Wayne Hartsfield, Chairman; Jim Dupree; T.C. Cogbill, Jr.; Rabie Rhodes; Dr. John W. Cole; Harry A. Haines; Rev. Emery Washington; Jack E. Meadows; and Dr. Ellis Gardner, Appellants, Nemo Vista School District and South Conway County School District, Appellees, Conway County Board of Education; Ernest L. Rankin, Secretary; J.D. Barnum, B. Jack Wilson; Leon Cowan; Fred Burnett and James E. Leach, Members; East Side School Districteter Faison, Superintendent; Cain Cochran; J.D. Hammond; Rupert Hemphill; Ladel Morris and Sammie Chriswell, Members; Nemo Vista School DistrictO. Adams, Superintendent; Haven Mahon; Clyde Stobaugh; J.V. Ward; J.M. Carr and Henry Huett, Members; Wonderview School Districtohn Dunsworth, Superintendent; Tony Rowell; Bill Alvey; Wayland Duvall; James Wells; Don Hillis and Doyle Franklin, Members, Conway County School District; Tony L. Desalvo; Stanley McCoy; Tommy Lee; Leroy Rainey and R.E. Mitchum, Members; Ernest Rankin, Ex-officio Secretary. UNITED STATES of America, v. STATE OF ARKANSAS; Arkansas Department of Education, Dr. Don R. Roberts, Director; Wayne Hartsfield, Chairman; Jim Dupree; T.C. Cobgill, Jr.; Rabie Rhodes; Dr. John W. Cole; Harry A. Haines; Rev. Emery Washington; Jack E. Meadows; and Dr. Ellis Gardner, Appellees, Nemo Vista School District and South Conway County School District, Appellant, Conway County Board of Education; Ernest L. Rankin, Secretary; J.D. Barnum, B. Jack Wilson; Leon Cowan; Fred Burnett and James E. Leach, Members; East Side School Districteter Faison, Superintendent; Cain Cochran; J.D. Hammond; Rupert Hemphill; Ladel Morris and Sammie Chriswell, Members; Nemo Vista School DistrictO. Adams, Superintendent; Haven Mahon; Clyde Stobaugh; J.V. Ward; J.M. Carr and Henry Huett, Members; Wonderview School Districtohn Dunsworth, Superintendent; Tony Rowell; Bill Alvey; Way |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
C. Randy McNair, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., for appellants.
Charles J. Cooper, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for U.S.
Robert V. Light, Little Rock, Ark., for South Conway County School Dist.
Before BOWMAN, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
This is a school desegregation case in the remedial stage of proceedings. The State of Arkansas and the Arkansas Department of Education (hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as "the State") appeal from a final judgment of the District Court requiring the State to finance the costs of desegregating the schools in Conway County, Arkansas. The State contends that the District Court committed reversible error, first, by reinstating the State as a defendant seven years after it originally was dismissed, and subsequently by ordering the State to pay the costs of desegregation without holding an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the State's liability. The State also contests the District Court's award of attorneys' fees as part of the costs. For the reasons stated below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
In 1972, the United States filed suit against the State of Arkansas, the Arkansas Department of Education and its Director, members of the State Board of Education, and the school districts in Conway County, Arkansas, including the superintendents and boards of school directors of those districts. The complaint alleged that the state and local authorities had established segregated school districts through a series of school district consolidations and had continued to maintain those segregated school districts in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000c-6.
Before trial in 1973, the District Court dismissed the State of Arkansas and the Arkansas Department of Education but retained the individual members of the State Board of Education and the State Director of Education as parties to the proceedings. The court stated "that if it turns out ultimately that the Government is entitled to relief at the State level such relief will be obtainable by the operation of the Court's decree on the State defendants who are now before the Court." United States v. Arkansas, No. LR-72-C-290, slip op. at 2-3 (E.D.Ark. July 26, 1973). The case then proceeded to trial and the District Court determined that local authorities had segregated school students on the basis of their race both within and among school districts. The District Court made no finding of liability on the part of the remaining State authorities. The court stated that "the State Board has nothing to do with the structuring of local school districts." Id. at 5. The court noted that "[t]he geographical arrangement of the Conway County districts resembles a crazy quilt ... result[ing] from the gerrymandering of district lines in years past in deference to the [State] requirement of segregation...." Id. at 9. Nevertheless, the District Court denied the Government's trial motion to reinstate the State and the Department of Education as parties.
In 1979, the District Court ruled that the appropriate remedy for the unconstitutional structure of the local school districts was a consolidation of the Plumerville, Morrilton, and East Side School Districts into a new school district that became the South Conway County School District. In addition, the Nemo Vista District was enlarged slightly by the addition of a portion of the former East Side District. The local school districts, in an interlocutory appeal, contested both "the correctness of the District Court's finding of purposeful segregation and the propriety of its order of interdistrict relief to remedy that segregation." Morrilton School District No. 32 v. United States, 606 F.2d 222, 225 (8th Cir.1979) (en banc ), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1071, 100 S.Ct. 1015, 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980). This Court affirmed. See 606 F.2d at 229.
In 1980, the local school districts moved to reinstate the State and the Department of Education as parties. The District Court granted the motion and then ordered the State to pay any costs the local school districts incurred as a result of implementing the desegregation plan. The District Court did not hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the State's liability, instead predicating the State's liability on the findings made in 1973 after the State's dismissal from the lawsuit. The court later modified its order to include attorneys' fees as part of the costs and referred to a magistrate petitions from the South Conway and Nemo Vista School Districts for reimbursement of these costs. After a hearing the magistrate issued a report. The District Court adopted the report and directed the State to reimburse Nemo Vista for attorneys' fees and other costs in the amount of $33,469.33 and to reimburse South Conway for attorneys' fees and other costs in the amount of $1,027,576.44. Both amounts are accruing interest at 9.08% per annum from May 7, 1980.
The State first asserts that the District Court's reinstatement of it as a party was erroneous and not supported by the legal authorities relied upon by the court. The State argues that the District Court's post-trial denial of the Government's motion to reinstate the State as a party, see United States v. Arkansas, slip op. at 2-3 (July 26, 1973), made the dismissal a final, appealable order. Since the dismissal was not appealed, the State contends that the doctrine of res judicata now bars reinstatement.
The effect of a dismissal normally is governed by Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 41(b) provides that "[u]nless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal ... operates as an adjudication on the merits." Rule 41(b), however, is tempered by Rule 54(b), which provides that any order or decision adjudicating "the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties" does not result in a final judgment until the entry of judgment concerning the remaining parties, unless the court expressly directs entry of judgment upon determining that there is no just reason for delay. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The District Court relied primarily upon Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as its authority for reinstating the State as a party, observing that the "dismissal of a party under the provisions of Rule 54(b) ... absent an express direction of entry of judgment is interlocutory when fewer than all of the defendants in a multi-party case are dismissed." United States v. Arkansas, No. LR-C-72-290, slip op. at 1 (E.D.Ark. April 9, 1980).
The District Court in 1973 neither included a determination that there was no just reason for delay nor expressly directed entry of a final judgment for the State when it dismissed the State as a party. Rule 54(b) thus specifically provides that "[i]n the absence of such determination and direction, ... the order ... is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The dismissal of the State as a party was not raised in the 1979 appeal. That appeal was interlocutory in nature and addressed only the liability of the local school districts and the propriety of interdistrict relief. See Morrilton School District No. 32 v. United States, 606 F.2d 222 (8th Cir.1979) (en banc ), ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Morrell & Co. v. Local Union 304A of United Food and Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO
...finality requirement which is challenged in this appeal.17 The Unions urge that this court resolved this issue in United States v. Arkansas, 791 F.2d 1573 (8th Cir.1986), by stating that "[t]he doctrine of res judicata therefore is simply inapplicable, for there has been no earlier final ju......
-
In re DEF Investments, Inc.
...... constituted consumer credit sales, and that DEF and the other named defendants violated state and federal law in the course of negotiating and collecting payments under the contracts. As an ......
-
Pennsylvania Human Relations Com'n v. School Dist. of Philadelphia
...... Neither the decision in Lyness v. State Board of Medicine, 529 Pa. 535, 605 A.2d 1204 (1992), cited by the Governor, nor other commingling ......
-
Ossman v. Diana Corp.
...for delaying entry of judgment, should be given no preclusive effect. Morrell, 913 F.2d at 563 n. 17 (discussing United States v. Arkansas, 791 F.2d 1573 (8th Cir.1986)). The Eighth Circuit declined to rely on Arkansas in deciding Morrell because "dismissals under Rule 54(b) are `subject to......