Reed v. Rhodes, 80-3574
| Citation | 635 F.2d 556 |
| Decision Date | 08 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-3574,80-3574 |
| Parties | Robert Anthony REED III et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. James RHODES et al., Defendants, and Cleveland Board of Education, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
George I. Meisel, Square, Sanders & Dempsey, William H. Baughman, Jr., John H. Bustamante, Bustamante, Donohoe, Palmisano & Co., Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant-appellant.
James L. Hardiman, Cleveland, Ohio, Thomas I. Atkins, Gen. Counsel, NAACP Special Contribution Fund, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, and LIVELY and ENGEL, Circuit Judges.
The Cleveland Board of Education appeals from two district court orders in this ongoing desegregation case-a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on July 25, 1980 and a Judgment Entry filed August 6, 1980. Relying on findings and conclusions contained in its July 25th memorandum, the August 6th entry adjudged the "Cleveland Defendants" 1 in civil contempt and ordered the Cleveland Board of Education to employ an "Administrator of Desegregation" to be selected by the district court. The decision of the district court came after extensive hearings and there is no contention of a due process violation.
The civil contempt issue was raised by a motion to show cause filed by the plaintiffs on March 25, 1980. This motion was addressed solely to the failure of the defendants to effectively implement transportation of pupils during Phase II of the court-ordered desegregation plan. On March 28, 1980 the district court issued an order directing the defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for nineteen alleged violations of previous court orders. Two of the cited matters referred to the problems with transportation which were the basis of the plaintiffs' motion. The other charges related to a variety of problems concerning community relations and educational components of the court-ordered plan which had been raised in an earlier report of the Special Master. During the hearings on the contempt issue, the United States as amicus curiae proposed that the court appoint a desegregation administrator with specified powers. Though the contempt issue and the matter of appointment of a desegregation administrator were heard together and decided at the same time, we do not believe they are completely interdependent. 2 Thus we have concluded to affirm the appointment of the desegregation administrator while vacating the adjudication of civil contempt.
The basic remedial order in this case was entered by the district court on February 6, 1978. On January 8, 1979 this court stayed the order of February 6, 1978 pending decision by the Supreme Court of two other school desegregation cases involving Ohio school systems. The stay was vacated by this court on August 23, 1979. Reed v. Rhodes, 607 F.2d 714, 737 (6th Cir. 1979). Though planning for systemwide desegregation of the Cleveland school system was required from February 6, 1978, actual implementation was delayed until late August 1979.
The failure of the defendants to achieve the results ordered by the district court on the schedule prescribed by the court is undeniably serious. Nevertheless, the transportation problems to which the original motion was addressed have been solved to a great extent by the employment of an experienced school transportation director. Progress has been made in correcting deficiencies in other areas of the school board's performance.
Unlike criminal contempt, civil contempt is not designed to be punitive or to vindicate the honor of the court. Rather, its purpose is to vindicate the rights of parties to the action. To the extent the appellant has not corrected its past failures to carry out the district court's remedial orders, the plaintiffs are now assured of receiving the benefit of those orders from the desegregation administrator. The powers of the newly-created office include "complete authority to direct the efforts (of) employees, and resources of the local defendants for the purpose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reed v. Rhodes
...of an official Desegregation Administrator to be paid by defendants. These actions were affirmed by this Court. See Reed v. Rhodes, 635 F.2d 556 (6th Cir.1980). Racial balance in Cleveland is difficult to achieve because the city is to a great extent divided racially along a North-South axi......
-
In re Elder-Beerman Stores Corp., Bankruptcy No. 95-33643
...B.R. at 634; see also United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 304, 67 S.Ct. 677, 701, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947); Reed v. Rhodes, 635 F.2d 556, 558 (6th Cir.1980); Thacker, 24 B.R. at 838 n. Because, as noted above, civil contempt orders ordinarily do not permit an award for punitive d......
-
Jackson v. Los Lunas Ctr. for Persons With Developmental Disabilities
...consent decrees. See, e.g., Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers' Intern. Ass'n v. E.E.O.C., 478 U.S. 421, 481-82 (1986); Reed v. Rhodes, 635 F.2d 556, 558-59 (6th Cir. 1980); Petties v. District of Columbia, 268 F.Supp.2d 38, 39-40 (D.D.C. 2003); Gary W. v. State of La., 1990 WL 17536 *1 (E.D. ......
-
John B. v. Menke
...(6th Cir.1993). The use of a special master to ensure compliance with a court's remedial order is well-established. See Reed v. Rhodes, 635 F.2d 556 (6th Cir.1980)(upholding the use of an "administrator of desegregation"). The Court may appoint a special master for a variety of reasons, inc......