Jackson v. Marvell School District No. 22, 20124.

• Citation: 425 F.2d 211
• Decision Date: 18 May 1970
• Docket Number: No. 20124.,20124.
• Parties: Ceiners JACKSON et al., Appellants, v. MARVELL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 22 et al., Appellees. Earlis JACKSON et al., Appellants, v. MARVELL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 22 et al., Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

425 F.2d 211 (1970)

Ceiners JACKSON et al., Appellants, v. MARVELL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 22 et al., Appellees.

Earlis JACKSON et al., Appellants, v. MARVELL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 22 et al., Appellees.

No. 20124.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 29, 1970.

Rehearing Denied May 18, 1970.

John W. Walker, of Walker, Rotenberry, Kaplan, Lavey & Hollingsworth, Little Rock, Ark., for appellants; Philip E. Kaplan, Little Rock, Ark., and Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit, III, and Norman Chachkin, New York City, on the brief.

Robert V. Light, Little Rock, Ark., for appellees; Herschel H. Friday and G. Ross Smith, Little Rock, Ark., on the brief.

Before MATTHES, LAY and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is the third time we are required to determine whether the appellee school district has adopted and placed into effect a plan for fully desegregating its schools.

In Jackson II, decided on October 2, 1969, reported at 416 F.2d 380, 8 Cir., we reversed the judgment of the district court and directed it "to require the Marvell School District to file * * * a plan which will convert the present organization of the public schools of Marvell to a unitary, nonracial system. The plan shall eliminate all vestiges of the freedom-of-choice provisions and shall be fully implemented and become effective no later than January 19, 1970." Id. at 385.

On remand, the district court entered an order on October 16, 1969, directing the district to submit a plan not later than December 1, 1969, and granting plaintiffs 20 days thereafter to respond. In compliance with that order, the district filed a report in which it proposed to restructure the schools beginning January 19, 1970, as follows: (a) all students in grades 1 through 3 were to be assigned to the site now known as Marvell Elementary School; (b) all students in grades 4 through 9 were to be assigned to the site now known as Tate Elementary School and Tate High School; (c) all students in grades 10 through 12 were to be assigned to the site now known as Marvell High School; (d) all faculty members willing to remain were to be retained and will be so assigned as to realize the maximum utilization of their training and experience without regard to their race.

Under date of December 15, counsel for plaintiffs informed counsel for the school district that in light of the plan proposed by the school district "to which plaintiffs have no objections at this time" there was no need for a hearing to be held.

In the meantime, however, and apparently without knowledge by plaintiffs' counsel at the time the aforesaid letter was written, the superintendent of the district notified all parents in writing of the restructuring of the schools as shown above and further informed them that "insofar as possible students will stay with their same teachers."

The notice from the superintendent precipitated the filing by plaintiffs on January 12, 1970, of a motion to cite the defendants for contempt of court. The motion was premised upon the proposal of the defendants to continue segregation of the classes.

Evidence was not heard on the motion for citation for contempt. However, the district court did hold a hearing on January 14, 1970, at which time the judge ruled from the bench that the plan submitted would be...