Jones v. Caddo Parish School Board, 74-1672.

• Decision Date: 30 August 1974
• Docket Number: No. 74-1672.,74-1672.
• Citation: 499 F.2d 914
• Parties: Beryl N. JONES et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, United States of America, Intervenor, v. CADDO PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al., Defendants-Appellees, Jerry Adams et al., Movants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

499 F.2d 914 (1974)

Beryl N. JONES et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, United States of America, Intervenor, v. CADDO PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al., Defendants-Appellees, Jerry Adams et al., Movants-Appellants.

No. 74-1672.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

August 30, 1974.

Norman J. Chachkin, Jack Greenberg, Margrett Ford, New York City, Hilry Huckaby, III, Shreveport, La., for appellants.

John R. Pleasant, Shreveport, La., for Caddo Parish School Bd.

Murphy W. Bell, Baton Rouge, La., for Beryl N. Jones et al.

Donald E. Walter, U. S. Atty., Shreveport, La., Robert H. Shemwell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brian K. Landsberg, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for the United States.

Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs brought this class action originally in 1965 to desegregate the public schools of Caddo Parish, Louisiana. The matter has been before us several times, most recently in 1973 (see 487 F.2d 1275) and in 1970 (see 421 F.2d 313).¹ Appellants have brought this appeal because they were denied the right to intervene in these proceedings by the District Judge.

On March 20, 1973, the United States, as plaintiff-intervenor, filed a response to plaintiffs' amended motion for further relief and, among other things, a recommendation was made that the District Court establish a biracial committee "to ascertain facts pertaining to the past and present operation of the school district, and to develop alternative methods of desegregation." The United States appended to its pleading a suggested order with a named biracial committee and District Judge Scott signed the order on the same day it was filed.

The biracial committee was composed of ten leading citizens of Caddo Parish, five white and five black, with an eleventh member, a chairman, who would vote only in the event of a tie. According to the School Board, the committee worked on its assignment for ten weeks and held seven public meetings and twenty-one private deliberative meetings. A plan of desegregation was unanimously adopted by the committee and filed with the District Court on June 1, 1973. On June 11, 1973, plaintiffs, through counsel, filed objection to the plan asserting that it was defective because it failed "to achieve as much desegregation as might feasibly be achieved." In their pleading, however, plaintiffs, through counsel, stated that they were "not opposed to the basic provisions of the court-appointed Citizens Committee's plan as it relates to desegregation of the administration, faculty and staff of the defendant School Board." On June 14, 1973, a motion was filed by Mrs. Fannie Adams on behalf of her minor children, Jerry, Vicki and William Adams, et al., through counsel, to add the named persons as additional parties plaintiffs in these proceedings. It was stated in the motion that "the interest of the proposed additional parties plaintiffs are the same as those of the original plaintiffs; the effective disestablishment of the dual school system in Caddo Parish and the operation of a unitary school system therein. The proposed additional parties plaintiffs will be represented by the same counsel who have heretofore represented the original plaintiffs."

Thereafter, on July 12, 1973, a motion was filed by Jesse N. Stone, Jr., "the original retained counsel for the original plaintiffs," in which he moved the Court to strike the names of associate counsel in the case and substitute the name of Murphy W. Bell, attorney (of Baton Rouge, Louisiana), as "chief counsel and trial attorney." The District Court approved the motion on July 13, 1973. On July 18, 1973, the District Court entered its order denying the motion to add additional parties plaintiffs. On the same date, the District Court entered orders denying motions to intervene of Caddo Teachers' Association and FAIR.

The record additionally shows that on July 19, 1973 a response to motion to enroll substitute counsel was filed by counsel whose names as associate counsel had been stricken as associate counsel for plaintiffs by Judge Scott's order of July 13, 1973. In this response the prayer thereto states that "undersigned counsel respectfully pray that this Court take the motion to enroll new counsel under advisement, grant the motion to add additional parties plaintiffs, permit the addition of Mr. Bell as counsel for Reverend Jones, Reverend McLain and Mrs. Smith at such time as a proper notice of appearance is filed, and proceed forthwith to a determination of the merits of this controversy."

On the next day, July 20, 1973, plaintiffs, through undersigned counsel (that is, new counsel Murphy W. Bell), filed their motion to strike objections previously filed herein to the court-appointed Citizens Committee's plan. The District Court accordingly entered its motion on the same day striking plaintiffs' objections. Likewise, on the same day, the District Court entered its order approving the biracial committee's plan in which the Court stated that the plaintiffs and the School Board had accepted the plan and the United States had filed its response which was appended to the order and interjects no objection thereto.² The biracial committee's plan approved by the District Court was thus implemented for the school year 1973-74. According to the School Board, the administrative staff at the highest level is integrated on a 50-50 ratio, the instructional staff is moving from 60-40 to 50-50, transportation and fields of athletics are integrated, and majority to minority transfers are granted without question. According to the plaintiffs, the black community, the School Board, and the white community all have accepted the plan with the exception of the present appellants. The Advisory Committee provided in the plan has been appointed and is functioning with five white and five black members. One of the black members was elected by the members as chairman of the committee. Finally the plaintiffs state, "The committee successfully developed an educationally sound plan, one which, if continued to be implemented as its letter and spirit are intended, could rid our courts of the burden with which they have diligently labored for too many years." (See plaintiffs' brief, pp. 4-5.)

On November 19, 1973, a motion was filed by Jerry, Vicki and William Adams, minors, through Mrs. Fannie Adams, and others, seeking leave to intervene as plaintiffs. These are the same parties whom predecessor counsel for plaintiffs sought to add as parties plaintiff, which motion was denied by the District Court. The motion was filed by the same counsel who were associate counsel for plaintiffs but whose names were stricken in that capacity on motion approved by the District Court on July 13, 1973. Movers sought an evidentiary hearing in order that they might assert on behalf of applicants for intervention and the class of persons represented by them the deprivation of constitutional rights by the operation of a dual system of public schools in Caddo Parish under the currently approved plan of desegregation under which the School Board is operating. The motion was denied without a hearing by the District Court, and this appeal followed.

We are...