Gaines v. Dougherty County Board of Education, 71-2818.
| Citation | 465 F.2d 363 |
| Decision Date | 14 August 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2818.,71-2818. |
| Parties | Shirley GAINES et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DOUGHERTY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
C. B. King, Albany, Ga., Jack Greenberg, Charles Stephen Ralston, New York City, Norman Chachkin, New York City, Elliott Holden, Albany, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellants.
J. W. Walters, County Atty., Perry, Walters, Langstaff, Lippitt & Campbell, Albany, Ga., for defendants-appellees.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
We again consider another appeal in the desegregation case involving the Dougherty County School System. Most recently, we remanded this case (442 F.2d 1344) on June 7, 1971 for reconsideration in light of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). A new plan was submitted by the Board, approved by the Court, but plaintiffs believed that the plan was substantially identical to that rejected by our June 7 order and accordingly appealed.
On August 25, 1971, we considered that appeal and again remanded the case with direction that the District Court issue a rule nisi to defendants as to why the student assignment plan prepared by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare should not be made the Board's plan for the school term. (See 446 F.2d 907.) The District Court complied with our order, held a hearing and with certain modifications directed the Board to implement the HEW plan for the school term. Plaintiffs being dissatisfied again appealed and that appeal is now before us for decision.
Appellants complain that the HEW plan is only a modification of the rejected Board plan, that it relies on contiguous zones which still leave the system with "severe imbalances." Apparently the Flint River divides Dougherty County into eastern and western halves and students are not transported across the river though, of course, that is possible and appellants assert is entirely feasible. It is also contended that the HEW plan does not take into account pairing of noncontiguous zones and busing, and that greater integration can be accomplished than now exists. We are furnished with the enrollment by school and race for pupils in each of the schools of the system and they show a number of one-race or predominantly one-race schools.
Though we believe that the District Judge faithfully complied with our last decree, nonetheless the HEW...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaines v. Dougherty County Bd. of Educ.
...that the district court enter a new plan. 3 As before, we were silent as to the district court's denial of attorneys' fees. 465 F.2d 363 (5th Cir.1972). Upon remand, the plaintiffs sought the immediate implementation of our mandate. The case, however, had been reassigned to a new judge, and......
-
Paige v. Gray
...as recent as 1972. See 329 F.2d 823 (1964); 334 F.2d 983 (1964); 392 F.2d 669 (1968); 442 F.2d 1344 (1971); 446 F.2d 907 (1971); 465 F.2d 363 (1972). United States v. Housing Authority of the City of Albany, Civil No. 10007 — January 16, 1973, Judge Elliott — In an unpublished opinion the c......
-
Gaines v. DOUGHERTY COUNTY BD. OF EDUC., Civ. A. No. 764-ALB.
...court's decision was reversed and the case was remanded for submission of yet another desegregation plan. Gaines v. Dougherty County Board of Education, 465 F.2d 363 (5th Cir.1972). No mention was made of plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees; thus, this court's decision in that regard wa......
- United States v. Shelton