Reed v. Rhodes, s. 76-2602 and 76-2603
| Decision Date | 17 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 76-2602 and 76-2603,s. 76-2602 and 76-2603 |
| Citation | 549 F.2d 1050 |
| Parties | Robert Anthony REED et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. James A. RHODES et al., Defendants-Petitioners. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
George I. Meisel, Charles F. Clarke, William C. Hartman, James P. Murphy, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, John H. Bustamante, Bustamante, Donohoe, Palmisano & Co., Cleveland, Ohio, James E. Michael, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, Mark O'Neill, Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, James L. McCrystal, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants-petitioners.
Thomas I. Atkins, Roxbury, Mass., Joseph P. Meissner, James L. Hardiman, Cleveland, Ohio, Nathaniel R. Jones, N.A.A.C.P., New York City, Louis R. Lucas, Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiffs-respondents.
Before McCREE, LIVELY and ENGEL, Circuit Judges.
We consider defendants' petition to permit an interlocutory appeal from an order of the district court which held them responsible for racially segregated conditions in the Cleveland schools and directed them to submit proposed instructions to a special master to be appointed to devise a remedial plan. Petitioners were also enjoined "from discriminating on the basis of race in the operation of" the Cleveland schools, "from creating, promoting, or maintaining racial segregation" in any facility in the Cleveland school system, and from proceeding with any planned construction of new facilities "not now underway" without specific review by the court 422 F.Supp. 708. This order was stayed by a single judge of this court pending the requested appeal 549 F.2d 1046. We also consider plaintiffs' motion to vacate the stay and plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to defendants' petition for permission to appeal.
The restraints placed upon defendants by the district court's order are neither severe nor costly. The order does not compel defendants to perform any particular act, except to participate in the formulation of a remedial plan. The direction to assist in the development of a remedy is not by itself appealable. See Milliken v. Bradley, 468 F.2d 903 (6th Cir. 1972); Taylor v. Board of Education, 288 F.2d 600 (2d Cir. 1961). Furthermore, the prohibition against racial discrimination is already imposed by the Constitution. However, the direction not to proceed with the construction of new facilities is appealable as an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mamula v. Satralloy, Inc.
...394 (S.D.Ohio 1974). See also, Reed v. Rhodes, 549 F.2d 1046 (6th Cir.1976), stay order of single judge vacated on other grounds, 549 F.2d 1050 (6th Cir.1976); Hamlin Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Comm'n, 337 F.2d 221, 222 (6th Cir.1964). The burden of the party ......
-
Newsom v. Norris
...see also Bradley v. Milliken, 468 F.2d 902 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 844, 93 S.Ct. 45, 34 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972); Reed v. Rhodes, 549 F.2d 1050 (6th Cir.1976); Sykes v. Krieger, 551 F.2d 689 (6th Although an order requiring a party to litigation to submit a proposed remedial plan is not......
-
United States v. State of Tex.
...That argument has almost invariably been rejected. As the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit declared in Reed v. Rhodes, 549 F.2d 1050, 1052 (1976), "the value of the constitutional rights to be protected in such circumstances far outweighs administrative costs that might be incurred in......
-
West Tenn. Assoc. Builders v. City of Memphis
...City's financial health and administrative efficiency cannot run roughshod over plaintiff's constitutional rights. See Reed v. Rhodes, 549 F.2d 1050, 1052 (6th Cir. 1976). At the same time, a stay also implicates the constitutional interests of minorities in the construction business and th......