McNeal v. Tate Cnty. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 07 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2:70-CV-00029-DMB,2:70-CV-00029-DMB |
| Parties | KELLY MCNEAL, et al. PLAINTIFFS v. TATE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
This school desegregation case is before the Court on: (1) the plaintiffs' "Motion for Supplemental Relief Pursuant to Desegregation Order, and to Compel Defendants to File Supplemental Reports Report [sic] That Are in Compliance with the August 4, 1970 Desegregation Order," Doc. #48; (2) the plaintiffs' "Motion for Further Relief Pursuant to Desegregation Order, and to Compel Defendants to Reinstitute Sports and Extracurricular Activities at Coldwater Attendance Center High School," Doc. #57; and (3) the Tate County School District's motion to strike, Doc. #89.
On April 27, 1970, Jeffie McNeal and other individual plaintiffs filed a complaint on behalf of their children, also named in the complaint, alleging that the Tate County School District ("District") and its Board of Education were operating an unconstitutional dual education system. The same plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with the same substantive allegations on June 8, 1970.
On August 4, 1970, United States District Judge Orma R. Smith entered an order enjoining the District from operating a dual system and directing the operation of a "unitary school system as required by the Supreme Court of the United States ...." Doc. #13-1 at 1. To this end, Judge Smith directed that attendance in the District's schools be determined by the assignment of students to three zones: "Easterly," "Northwesterly," and "Southwesterly." Id. at 2-3. The order also called for the filing of regular reports to include, among other things, the race and number of teachers in the District and "a brief description of any present or proposed construction or expansion of facilities." Id. at 9.
Over the ensuing five years, the District, employing methods such as ability grouping and the sale of a school to a private institution, unsuccessfully attempted to circumvent the requirements of the injunction. See McNeal v. Tate Cty. Sch. Dist., 460 F.2d 568, 572 (5th Cir. 1971); McNeal v. Tate Cty. Sch. Dist., 508 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1975). On July 11, 1975, Judge Smith entered a memorandum opinion and order stating that "[m]aterial progress must be made in the elimination of all-black grade-sections if the school district is to avoid the imposition of an at random assignment of students." McNeal v. Tate Cty. Sch. Dist., No. DC 70-29-S, 1975 WL 175356, at *3 (N.D. Miss. July 11, 1975). Approximately one year later, on July 16, 1976, Solomon Osborne entered a notice of appearance as counsel for the plaintiffs. Doc. #1 at 5. Following Osborne's notice of appearance, this case lay largely dormant for more than thirty years.1 See id. at 5-6.
On August 9, 2010, the District filed a motion to redraw the three attendance zones created by Judge Smith. Doc. #3. On September 3, 2010, this case was reassigned to United States District Judge W. Allen Pepper. Judge Pepper, noting the absence of an objection from the plaintiffs, granted the District's motion on September 28, 2010. Doc. #4. Pursuant to JudgePepper's order, and of relevance here, students residing in the Easterly Zone were assigned to Independence High School; students residing in the Northwesterly Zone were assigned to Coldwater High School; and students residing in the Southwesterly Zone were assigned to Strayhorn High School. Id. at 2-3.
Following Judge Pepper's September 2010 order, except for the continued filing of annual reports, this case remained inactive until April 1, 2016, when the District filed a motion to modify the attendance zone lines. Doc. #12. In its motion, the District asks the Court to modify the orders of Judge Smith and Judge Pepper to: (1) close Coldwater High School; and (2) modify the Northwesterly Zone to send some of its students to Independence High School and the remaining students to Strayhorn High School. Id. This case was reassigned to the undersigned district judge on April 4, 2016. Approximately one month later, on May 11, 2016, the District filed a motion seeking expedited review of its motion to modify. Doc. #17.
On May 18, 2016, a group of parents of students in the District filed a motion to be substituted as plaintiffs in this action. Doc. #20. On June 14, 2016, this Court entered an order granting the motion to substitute and requesting additional information on the District's motion to modify the desegregation plan. Doc. #33. With regard to the District's motion to expedite, the order stated that the Court would "endeavor to resolve this matter as expeditiously as possible." Id. at 8.
On June 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion for Relief Pursuant to Desegregation Order, for Discovery, to Compel Defendants to File Complete Mandated Reports and to Comply with the Requirements of the August 4, 1970 Desegregation Order" ("Omnibus Motion"). Doc. #37. In the motion, the plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the District had filed years ofannual reports omitting required information regarding teachers in the District. Id. The plaintiffs requested that the time for filing their response to the District's motion to modify be extended until the District provided such information.
In response to the Omnibus Motion, the District filed a supplemental report conceding that the required data showing the number of teachers by race at each school in the District "has not been submitted since 2000." Doc. #38. The supplemental report purports to provide this data "for years 2010-2011 through 2015-2016" based on data "readily available" to the District. Id.; Doc. #38-1. The District represents in its supplemental report that it "is still compiling data pre-2010 and will seasonably supplement this report once it obtains same." Doc. #38.
On June 28, 2016, this Court entered an order granting in part and deferring in part the Omnibus Motion. Doc. #39. The Court stayed the plaintiffs' deadline to respond to the motion to modify because "information about the number of teachers by race is necessary for Plaintiffs to respond to statements made by the District in its supplemental brief in support of its motion to modify the attendance zone lines (statements included at the Court's direction) regarding faculty and staff in the District's schools." Further, the order directed the District to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for its years of non-compliance with the desegregation order's mandate to report the number of teachers by race for each school in the District.
The District responded to the order to show cause on July 5, 2016. Doc. #41. Six days later, on July 11, 2016, the District moved to strike the Omnibus Motion. Doc. #43. The same day, the District responded in opposition to the Omnibus Motion. Doc. #45.
On July 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion for Supplemental Relief Pursuant to Desegregation Order, and to Compel Defendants to File Supplemental Reports Report [sic] That Are in Compliance with the August 4, 1970 Desegregation Order" ("Reporting Motion"). Doc.#48. The District responded to the Reporting Motion on July 25, 2016. Doc. #50. In the memorandum accompanying its response, the District represents that it had "reviewed its records regarding construction and the only year that construction was not reported was 2004." Doc. #51 at 6.
The plaintiffs responded in opposition to the District's motion to strike on July 27, 2016, Doc. #54; but did not file a reply in support of the Omnibus Motion. The District replied in support of its motion to strike on August 8, 2016. Doc. #56.
On September 30, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion for Further Relief Pursuant to Desegregation Order, and to Compel Defendants to Reinstitute Sports and Extracurricular Activities at Coldwater Attendance Center High School" ("Extracurricular Motion"). Doc. #57. The motion and accompanying memorandum brief, which are supported by numerous affidavits, represent that, at the beginning of the 2016-2017 academic year, students at Coldwater Attendance Center High School were informed "that interscholastic sports extracurricular activities would no longer be available to students attending Coldwater ... [and that] Coldwater students desiring to participate in interscholastic sports ... would have to transfer to Strayhorn High School or to Independence High School." Doc. #58 at 2. The plaintiffs seek: (1) "an immediate order ... compelling the Defendants to reinstitute interscholastic sports and extracurricular activities at Coldwater;" (2) "that this Court find defendants in civil contempt for violating the terms of the 1970 Desegregation Order;" (3) an order "dismissing Defendants' Motion to Modify Attendance Zone Lines without prejudice;" and (4) "an order ... grant[ing] the Plaintiffs reasonable attorney fees, costs, and the expenses of preparing and filing this Motion." Doc. #57 at ¶¶ 9-12. The District responded in opposition to the Extracurricular Motion onOctober 11, 2016, and the plaintiffs timely replied. Doc. #66; Doc. #71; Doc. #69. In their reply, the plaintiffs assert that the District further violated the 1970 order's reporting requirements by failing to report the construction of Strayhorn and Independence High Schools and other "facilities expansions." The plaintiffs again argue that the District should be held in civil contempt for these violations.
The Court convened an evidentiary hearing on the Extracurricular Motion on October 17, 2016. Doc. #73. In their opening evidence, the plaintiffs presented testimony from numerous current and former Coldwater students. In response, the District called District Superintendent ...
To continue reading
Request your trial