Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ-KLH Document 55 Filed 06/18/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 603

MINUTES OF PROCEEDING ROBERT G. JAMES U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE June 19, 2012

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MONROE DIVISION

JIMMY ANDREWS, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 65-11297

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

CITY OF MONROE, ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

* * * * * * * * * A status conference was held in the above-referenced matter on June 18, 2012, beginning

at 10:00 A.M. Attending in person were Doug Lawrence, counsel for the Monroe City School

Board (“School Board”); Charles Kincade, counsel for Plaintiffs Benya F. Marshall and Annie F.

Harris; Debbie Dickerson, Courtroom Deputy; and Kayla Dye May, Law Clerk. Attending by

telephone was Franz Marshall, United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”).

The Court raised the issue of the pending March 30, 2010 Consent Decree. Under that

Decree, a unitary status review is set to take place after June 30, 2014. However, it is the intent

of the Court that the parties take affirmative steps to address any issues that would prevent a

unitary status finding in 2014. As issues arise, the Court expects the parties to attempt to reach

an amicable resolution or to contact the Court for a hearing to resolve the issues, rather than

waiting to conduct a review in 2014. In the upcoming June 30, 2012 status report, the Court

expects the School Board to identify and address any unresolved issues.

DOJ’s counsel raised concerns about the effect recent education legislation in Louisiana

might have on desegregation cases. All parties agreed that they were concerned about the

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ-KLH Document 55 Filed 06/18/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 604 potential effects, but the Court and the parties agreed that it is unclear what those effects may be at this time. The Court’s intent is to continue to move forward and to address problems as they arise. The Court and the parties also addressed the pending Motion for Partial Relief filed by the School Board. The DOJ does not oppose the motion. Both Plaintiffs’ counsel and the School Board’s counsel stated that they would not call any witnesses or make further arguments, but would stand on their written briefs to the Court. The Court indicated that it would issue a ruling very shortly. The conference concluded at 10:25 A.M. RGJ
2

 
 03/2C2a/2s0e103:6115:-1c4v-F1A1X298177-5R5G12J0-3K4LH DocumNeAnRAt 1S8W RFEiGleIOdN11/04/69 Page 1 of 1 PageID #14:1 01042

.HID 8'fAUI »JnUCr CtaJIr

. . . . . .talC!" ~

_I4VJI. .
n.r_. lfAL.

va·. •• C. A. 1l,Jt7

..._ • •IIB . . . . . _ •. IT AL.

C1ft ,. _

.• IT AL~

!!C!!I.

,,1at.la - - . . . . . die ee.rt .....ataa .......

• 1okl:'" of· . . . . . . . . . . . of thi. c.rt. i l l , " eeI'taIa

oWl. . of ..,~ . . . . . aft -'~ .....18 .. 'tile City

*t,•• , .. or ............. tile jedatHed_ thI

~ hIIol

......... a_.__.a

1,.,.lW•.., .~ ...... ~ - bIr ~. de

...,ctoa

-u. .. dab

tlball .......... by ........... the

kIIo.ol ..... .".... .. ~ Cewt , . ita 'ftlkts' .... the

....I ............ .un.... ~ to . . . .

_n...... tid....... ·wt~~t ef eM ~.

Dante .... -!f:~~ .,

I,". fJa eta..... fa

the esq .f ....... 1.cnd.......

 
 Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ-KLH Document 15 Filed 03/26/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 133

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION

JIMMY ANDREWS, et al., Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v. MONROE CITY SCHOOL BOARD, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 65-11297

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CONSENT DECREE

This Consent Decree addresses the school desegregation obligations of the Monroe City

School Board (“MCSB”). At the United States’ request, Defendant MCSB has provided

extensive information regarding the Board’s compliance with its desegregation obligations.

Consequently, the United States and MCSB have engaged in numerous discussions and have

agreed, and it is the ruling of this Court, that the MCSB shall implement, inter alia, the policies

detailed herein to address certain of its desegregation obligations.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 5, 1965, Jimmy Andrews and Tommy Ray Robertson, minor children enrolled

in the District, sued Defendants through their mothers, alleging racial segregation and

discrimination in the operation of the Monroe City public schools. On September 17, 1965, the

Court signed a permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants from “continuing to operate a

Page 1 of 9

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ-KLH Document 15 Filed 03/26/10 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 134 compulsory bi-racial school system.” In February 1970, the Court allowed the United States to participate as amicus curiae, “with the right to submit pleadings, evidence, arguments and briefs, the right to move for injunctive and other necessary and proper relief, and the right to initiate such further proceedings that may be necessary and appropriate.” On May 11, 1978, the Court granted the United States’ motion for leave to intervene. Recently, the United States initiated a review of the Monroe City school district to assess changes that had occurred in the District, and to ensure the District’s compliance with extant desegregation orders in this case and applicable federal law. As part of its review, the United States conducted a site visit of several of the District’s schools from March 4 through March 6, 2008. II. SCHOOL DISTRICT PROFILE The District currently operates eighteen schools – twelve elementary-level schools, two junior high schools, one middle school, three high schools – and one alternative academic center. The District’s student enrollment is 87% black, 12% white.
Page 2 of 9

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ-KLH Document 15 Filed 03/26/10 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 135

SCHOOL NAME (GRADE SPAN)

District Student Enrollment 2009-2010 School Year

BLACK
STUDENTS

WHITE
STUDENTS

OTHER MINORITY TOTAL
STUDENTS

1 Carver Elementary (PS-6)

429 (99.5%) 2 (0%)

0 (0%)

431

2 J.S. Clark Elementary (PS-6)

421 (92.7%) 28 (6.2%)

5 (1.1%)

454

3 Barkdull Faulk Elementary (PS-6)

267 (99.6%) 1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

268

4 Clara Hall Accelerated School (PS-2)

311 (99.7%) 1 (0.3%)

0 (0%)

312

5 Sallie Humble Elementary (PS-6)

357 (75.6%) 99 (21.0%) 16 (3.4%)

472

6 Berg Jones Elementary (PS-5)

396 (100%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%)

396

7 Lexington Elementary (PS-6)

259 (38.8%) 388 (58.2%) 20 (3.0%)

667

8 Lincoln Elementary (PS-6)

415 (98.6%) 4 (1.0%)

2 (0.4%)

421

9 Minnie Ruffin Elementary (PS-5)

552 (99.5%) 0 (0%)

3 (0.5%)

555

10 Cypress Point Elementary (PS-6)

416 (93.9%) 25 (5.6%)

2 (0.5%)

443

11 Madison James Foster Elementary (PS-6) 417 (100%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%)

417

12 Thomas Jefferson Elementary (3-5)

204 (100%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%)

204

13 Carroll Junior High (7-8)

346 (99.7%) 0 (0%)

1 (0.3%)

347

14 Martin Luther King Jr. Middle (6-8)

578 (98.6%) 6 (1.0%)

2 (0.3%)

586

15 Robert E. Lee Junior High (7-8)

296 (67.7%) 129 (29.5%) 12 (2.7%)

437

16 Carroll High (9-12)

557 (99.3%) 4 (0.7%)

0 (0%)

561

17 Neville High (9-12)

519 (57.3%) 358 (39.5%) 29 (3.2%)

906

18 Wossman High (9-12)

649 (98.5%) 8 (1.2%)

2 (0.3%)

659

Total

7524 (86.6%) 1068 (12.3%) 94 (1.1%)

8686

Page 3 of 9

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ-KLH Document 15 Filed 03/26/10 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 136
III. ORDER The parties to this Consent Decree agree that the prior orders of this court shall continue
in full force and effect except to the extent that they are modified by this Order. The Board agrees and is ordered to undertake the following provisions in good faith: A. High School Course Offerings. The District will offer the same courses at every high school in the District, including but not limited to AP, pre-AP, Honors, Dual Enrollment, and Distance Learning courses. 1. The District will modify the District’s course scheduling forms accordingly and will develop and implement a system to ensure the availability of course offerings at every school in the District by the start of the 2010-2011 school year. The District will provide details of this system to the United States by January 15, 2010. 2. The District will sponsor and/or provide activities for staff development related to the provision of the same course offerings at every high school in the District. 3. These staff development activities will be completed prior to the start of the 2010-2011 school year. The District will detail all staff development activities in a report to the United States by April 1, 2010. 4. Beginning in students’ 7th-grade year and again in the 8th-grade year, the District will disseminate information to junior high and middle school students specifying all classes available at the high school level and will provide detailed descriptions of each class, including but not limited to a
Page 4 of 9

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ-KLH Document 15 Filed 03/26/10 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 137
list and detailed explanation of the following classes: TOPS pre-requisite classes (as set forth in Paragraph C below); Honors classes; pre-AP and AP classes that render students eligible for AP credits; and classes that provide college-level course credit. 5. The District will encourage high school Honors, pre-AP and AP class enrollment for all high school students, especially junior high and middle school students enrolled in Gifted classes. 6. The District will explore all sources of funding for AP examinations, such as the Louisiana Department of Education’s Advanced Placement Test Fee Reimbursement Program, which allows schools with low-income students to apply for reimbursement for the cost of AP exams. B. Medical Magnet Program. By the fall of the 2011-2012 school year, the District will fully implement the medical magnet program at Carroll High School as required by this Court’s April 29, 1998 order (attached hereto as Exhibit 1) in an attempt to increase the diversity of the student population at Carroll High. 1. The District will actively promote the Carroll High School medical magnet program at all junior high, middle, and high schools in the District. 2. Each spring semester, the District will conduct an informative medical magnet assembly at each junior high and middle school in the District. 3. Carroll High School will form a partnership with local universities, such as Grambling State University or the University of Louisiana at Monroe, and with the Louisiana Community and Technical College System to
Page 5 of 9

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ-KLH Document 15 Filed 03/26/10 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 138
allow advanced college and university Nursing students to serve as mentors to medical magnet students at Carroll High School. 4. As part of its college and university partnership program, the District will make every effort to negotiate available transition assistance – such as discounted tuition – for students in the medical magnet program who choose to enroll as a student with one of the college or university partners. 5. Medical magnet students will have job shadowing opportunities at local healthcare facilities. C. TOPS Scholarship. The District will encourage all high school students to attempt to qualify for the Tuition Opportunity Program for Students (TOPS), which provides scholarships for qualified high school students who choose to attend a Louisiana state college or university. During the high school preregistration and registration process, the District will notify all entering high school students of TOPS and its prerequisites. The District will also ensure that every high school student has the opportunity to take two units of a foreign language and to take the American College Test (“ACT”) examination, prerequisites for TOPS qualification. D. Intercultural Development Research Association. The Board agrees to work with the Equity Assistance Center of the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) in order to ensure that all students have an equitable opportunity to participate in Gifted, Honors, pre-AP, and AP programming at all schools in the District. Within 45 days of the date of this Order, the Board will
Page 6 of 9

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ-KLH Document 15 Filed 03/26/10 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 139
continue discussions with the IDRA and will submit a formal request for assistance to Dr. Bradley Scott, Director of the IDRA South Central Collaborative for Equity. Alternatively, and only should the need arise, the professional services of a like professional or entity (that provides professional services), other than Dr. Bradley Scott or the IDRA South Central Collaborative for Equity, may be engaged to provide the assistance, provided that the professional or entity is mutually acceptable to the United States and the Board. E. The Board, acting through the Superintendent, will ensure that all principals, other administrators, faculty and certified staff and faculty are informed of the provisions of this Decree. IV. MONITORING AND REVIEW This Consent Decree sets forth in detail the areas to be addressed and the actions to be undertaken by the Board. The terms of this decree shall be in force for the next five (5) school years until June 30, 2014, at which time the parties shall conduct a full evaluation of the District’s compliance with the terms of this agreement and with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applicable federal law to determine the District’s eligibility to request a declaration of unitary status from this Court. At the end of each school year, on June 30, the District shall submit to the Court, United States, and private plaintiffs a report on each of the above categories that includes the following information: 1. an update on the District’s work with the IDRA or other mutually approved professional or entity; 2. a list of any and all classes offered at each high school in the District, the training
Page 7 of 9

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ-KLH Document 15 Filed 03/26/10 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 140

and qualifications of each teacher selected to teach each class listed, and the

number of students – by race/ethnicity – enrolled in each class listed;

3. copies of all information disseminated to junior high and middle school students

regarding the high school course offerings;

4. a detailed explanation of the District’s efforts to provide funding for low-income

students to take AP examinations;

5. the number of students – by race/ethnicity – who have registered to take AP

examinations and a list of the examinations those students have registered to take;

6. the number of students – by race/ethnicity and by AP examination – who scored

three (3) or above on one or more of the AP examinations they registered to take;

7. the number of students – by race/ethnicity – enrolled in the medical magnet

program at Carroll High School;

8. the number of high school students – by school and by race/ethnicity – who

received the TOPS scholarship.

ENTERED THIS

DAY OF

, 2010.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 8 of 9

Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ-KLH Document 15 Filed 03/26/10 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 141

APPROVED:
FOR THE UNITED STATES:
William J. Flanagan Acting United States Attorney

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

/s/Katherine Vincent KATHERINE VINCENT Assistant United States Attorney

/s/Allison R. Brown FRANZ R. MARSHALL ALLISON R. BROWN U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Educational Opportunities Section Patrick Henry Building 601 D Street, N.W., Suite 4300 Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202) 514-4092 Facsimile: (202) 514-8337 E-mail: allison.brown@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor

FOR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MONROE CITY:

/s/L. Douglas Lawrence L. DOUGLAS LAWRENCE 209 West Jefferson Avenue Post Office Box 1485 Bastrop, Louisiana 71221-1485 Tel: (318) 281-9621 Fax: (318) 556-4780 E-mail: lawrencefirm@bellsouth.net

Page 9 of 9

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MONROE DIVISION

JIMMY ANDREWS, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 65-11297

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

CITY OF MONROE, ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

MEMORANDUM ORDER On August 30, 2010, the Monroe City School Board (“MCSB”) filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment or to Clarify Obligations Imposed by this Court Relative to the Transportation of the Monroe City School District [Doc. No. 26]. In the motion, MCSB explains that, under La. Rev. Stat. 17:158(A)(1), it is required to transport non-public school students to a “school of suitable grade.” Under its interpretation of this statute, MCSB believes that it is required to transport students to the school of their choice, whether private, parochial, or charter, as long as (1) the school operates in the City of Monroe; (2) the school does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, or national origin; and (3) the student seeking transportation lives more than one mile from the school. MCSB also operates under a federal desegregation decree which regulates the transportation of students. At present, MCSB contends that transportation of non-public students is “inconsequential” to operations and does not have an adverse impact on desegregation efforts. However, MCSB seeks an order from the Court clarifying its transportation obligations under La. Rev. Stat. 17:158(A)(1). On September 2, 2010, the Court issued a minute entry [Doc. No. 27] explaining that the

Court does not believe that a modification to the desegregation decree is necessary in this case. Instead, it is the opinion of the Court that MCSB has a duty to comply with state law unless or until its compliance is in conflict with its desegregation obligations. The Court ordered any party who had an objection to MCSB’s intent to provide transportation to non-public students in compliance with La. Rev. Stat. 17:158(A)(1), to file an opposition memorandum within ten (10) days. The parties were informed that if no memorandum were filed, an order granting the motion would issue.
As of this date, more than ten (10) days from the filing of the Court’s minute entry, no opposition memorandum has been filed by any party. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that MCSB’s Motion for Relief from Judgment or to Clarify Obligations Imposed by this Court Relative to the Transportation of the Monroe City School District [Doc. No. 26] is GRANTED. MCSB shall comply with the provisions of La. Rev. Stat. 17:158(A)(1) with regard to transportation of non-public school students unless or until its compliance conflicts with its duties under federal desegregation law.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 15th day of September, 2010.
2

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MONROE DIVISION

JIMMY ANDREWS, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 65-11297

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

CITY OF MONROE, ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

RULING

Pending before the Court is a Motion for Partial Relief from Judgment [Doc. No. 48] filed

by Defendant Monroe City School Board (“School Board”). The School Board moves the Court

to approve its plan to modify student attendance zones and assignments for certain elementary

and middle schools located in the Monroe City School District (“the District”).

For the following reasons, the School Board’s Motion for Partial Relief from Judgment is

GRANTED.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The boundaries for the District are coterminous with the geographic boundaries that form

the corporate limits of the City of Monroe, Louisiana (“the City”). According to the 2010 United

States Census Bureau data, the City’s population has decreased to 48,815 residents over the years.

The racial composition of the City is 33.4% white and 63.9% black, which reflects an increase in

the black population and a decrease in the white population since the last figures in 2000. In the

past ten years, the City has also experienced a decrease in population in the southern part of the

City, which is largely populated by black residents, and a greater growth in enrollment in the

schools in the northern part of the City, which has a greater concentration of white residents.

Currently, the District’s student population is 85% black.

For more than 40 years, the School Board has operated the District under a desegregation decree. On August 5, 1965, a complaint was filed in the name of then minor students, Jimmy Andrews and Tommy Ray Robertson, by their mothers, against the City, the Mayor, the members of the School Board, and the Superintendent. On September 17, 1965, the Court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from operating a bi-racial school system.
On August 1, 1969, the Court issued a desegregation decree. In this decree, the Honorable Ben C. Dawkins, Jr., approved a modified desegregation plan proposed by the School Board, which provided:
(1) Following a zoning plan proposed by the Monroe City School Board; (2) Allowing any student in the majority race at his school to transfer to a school
where he would be in the minority race; (3) Refusing students the opportunity to transfer from a school in the District to a
school under the direction of the Ouachita Parish School Board; (4) Allowing the School Board to appoint a bi-racial advisory committee to assist in
the desegregation of schools; and (5) Submitting a plan by February 1, 1970, to accomplish full integration or
desegregation of the school system. The August 1, 1969 decree was subsequently modified on November 4, 1969; February 11, 1970; February 24, 19701; July 30, 1970; July 30, 1971; January 27, 1972; August 16, 1973; August 30, 1973; August 15, 1988; June 7, 1989; July 6, 1992; April 29, 1998; August 4, 1998; December
1The February 11 and 24, 1970 modifications specifically addressed student assignments. 2

18, 2000; July 26, 2000; August 8, 2005; March 30, 2010; and July 25, 2011. On February 16, 1970, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) intervened as
amicus curiae. On May 11 1978, the Court granted DOJ’s motion to formally intervene and DOJ has been active in the case since that time.
Although there have been many modifications to the desegregation decree, the origin of the current attendance zone plan dates back to at least 1981.
On July 6, 1992, the Court granted the School Board’s motion for unitary status in part and declared the District unitary in the areas of facilities, extracurricular activities, and hiring and retention of teachers and administrators. The Court denied the School Board’s motion in part, finding that the District was not unitary in the areas of teacher and principal assignments, student assignments, and transportation.
In July 9, 1998, Benya Marshall and Annie Faye Harris (collectively “Plaintiffs”) were permitted to join the case as Plaintiffs and remain actively involved.
On December 2, 2009, the Court held a status conference with the parties to address the remaining areas in which the School Board had not been declared unitary. At that time, the DOJ and the School Board reported that they had been working amicably in an effort to reach agreement on a consent decree. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not have concerns to report from his clients.
On March 26, 2010, the parties filed a proposed Consent Decree with the Court. Plaintiffs did not object. On March 30, 2010, the Court signed a Consent Order [Doc. No. 16], which again modified the August 1, 1969 Decree. The Consent Order provided for specific actions to be taken by the School Board, culminating in a review of the District’s unitary status at the end of June,
3

2014. On July 25, 2011, the Court issued an Order [Doc. No. 38] granting the School Board’s
Motion for Partial Relief from Judgment, again modifying the August 1, 1969 Decree, to provide for the reassignment of sixth grade students at Cypress Point Elementary School to Sallie Humble Elementary School for the 2011-2012 school year. Additionally, the School Board was directed to “petition the Court to approve the School Board’s proposed comprehensive attendance plan for implementation prior to the commencement of the 2012-2013 school year.” Id.
Subsequently, the School Board retained a demographer, Michael Hefner, to assist in the development of a new attendance zone plan. After Mr. Hefer completed his report and made his recommendations to the School Board, on May 25, 2012, in compliance with the Court’s July 25, 2011 Order, the School Board filed the instant Motion for Partial Relief from Judgment [Doc. No. 48]. The DOJ does not oppose the proposed attendance zone plan. Plaintiffs filed an opposition memorandum [Doc. No. 51]. The School Board has also filed a reply memorandum [Doc. No. 52].
The Court conducted a status conference and hearing on the motion on June 18, 2012, and is now prepared to rule. II. ANALYSIS
Once a school board has been determined to have violated the Equal Protection Clause by maintaining a discriminatory dual educational system, then under Brown v. Board of Educ. of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kan., 347 U.S. 483 (1954), and Brown v. Board of Educ., 349 U.S. 294 (1955), the dual system must be dismantled, and the school board must “take whatever steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be
4

eliminated root and branch.” Green v. County Sch. Bd. of New Kent Cty., Va., 391 U.S. 430, 43738 (1968).
Despite the passage of time, a school board’s duty does not end with the initial desegregation order; rather the school board has a “continuing duty to eliminate the system-wide effects of earlier discrimination and to create a unitary school system untainted by the past.” Ross v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 699 F.2d 218, 225 (5th Cir. 1983) (citing Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 15 (1971)). The district court “retain[s] jurisdiction until it is clear that state-imposed segregation has been completely removed.” Id. (citing Green, 391 U.S. at 439; Raney v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 443, 449 (1968)).
As part of its constitutional duties, the district court must scrutinize school board actions with regard to certain areas, including student assignment. Hull v. Quitman Cty. Bd. of Educ., 1 F.3d 1450, 1458 (5th Cir. 1993). The court’s concern is whether any action or plan proposed by the School Board will be used to “perpetuate or reestablish the dual system.” Id. at 1454. (citations omitted). Nevertheless, “there is no constitutional duty to achieve maximum desegregation or to achieve an ideal racial balance in the schools.” Id. at 1455 (citations omitted). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit “has also recognized limits imposed upon desegregation efforts by population changes and the reality of white flight, holding that ‘school officials who have taken effective action have no affirmative fourteenth-amendment duty to respond to the private actions of those who vote with their feet.’” Id. (quoting Ross v. Houston Independent Sch. District, 699 F.2d 218, 288 (5th Cir. 1983) (other citation omitted)).
As part of its analysis, the Supreme Court has permitted district courts to only a limited use of mathematical formulas in the area of student assignments. Swann v. Charlotte-
5

Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. 1, 25 (1971). Such formulas are “no more than a starting point in the process of shaping a remedy, rather than an inflexible requirement.” Id. at 24. Commonly, a 20% plus or minus deviation from the overall student racial percentages has been used to determine if a school is racially identifiable. See United States v. Texas Educ. Agency, 679 F.2d 1104, 1114 (5th Cir. 1982) (using a 20% deviation); see also United States v. Georgia, 171 F.3d 1333, 1338 (11th Cir. 1999) (using a 20% deviation). However, an attendance zone plan may pass Constitutional muster, even though racially identifiable schools continue to exist in the district.
Based on its continuing jurisdiction over the areas of student assignments, teacher and principal assignments, and transportation, the Court must review the proposed attendance zone plan, which would result in the following changes to student assignments and school attendance zones, effective the 2012-2013 school year:
(1) Martin Luther King, Jr. Middle School will be converted from a school that serves students in grade levels 6 through 8 to a school that serves students in grade levels 7 and 8;
(2) Sixth grade students who would otherwise be assigned to Martin Luther King, Jr. Middle School will be assigned to Berg Jones Elementary School, Jefferson Upper Elementary School or Minnie Ruffin Elementary;
(3) The current Lexington Elementary School and Sallie Humble Elementary School attendance zones will be merged to form a single attendance zone;
(4) Lexington Elementary School will be converted to a lower elementary school that serves students in grade levels pre-kindergarten through 2 who reside within the 6

newly formed attendance zone; (5) Sallie Humble Elementary school will be converted to an upper elementary school
that serves students in grade levels 3 through 6 who reside within the newly formed attendance zone; (6) That section of the southern boundary of the existing Cypress Point Elementary School attendance zone that lies between U.S. Highway 165 to the west and South College Drive to the east will be modified to establish the Union-Pacific Railroad track as the new boundary; (7) The Union Pacific Railroad track that forms the southern boundary for the Cypress Point Elementary School attendance zone will also serve as the northern boundary for Lincoln Elementary School attendance zone; (8) Students who attended grade level 5 at Cypress Point Elementary School and who, as a consequence of the Cypress Point Elementary School - Lincoln Elementary School zone modification, will be zoned to attend Lincoln Elementary School, will be permitted to remain at Cypress Point Elementary School until such time that they complete grade level 6; (9) Students in grade level 6 who reside within the Cypress Point Elementary School zone will be reassigned to Cypress Point Elementary School, rather than to Sallie Humble Elementary School; Additionally, the School Board seeks authority to modify staffing assignments and transportation routes as necessary to accommodate the student reassignments and changes in attendance zones. The School Board contends that the last comprehensive modification to the attendance
7

zones took place in 1998, but those changes and post-1998 modifications did not serve the current student population of the District. Based on the findings of the demographer, Mr. Hefner, the School Board contends that its proposed attendance zone plan would have no effect on racial demographics for Martin Luther King, Jr. Middle School, Berg Jones Elementary School, Jefferson Upper Elementary School, and Minnie Ruffin Elementary. See [Doc. No. 48, Exh. 3]. The students zoned to attend these elementary schools for fifth grade would simply remain at the school for sixth grade. Currently, all students attending the schools are black, and, thus, the plan does not effect any changes in the student population.
The School Board further contends that the establishment of a lower elementary school at Lexington Elementary School and an upper elementary school at Sallie Humble Elementary School will have a positive effect on desegregation efforts. The black student enrollment at Lexington Elementary School will increase from 38.1% to 45%, and the black student enrollment at Sallie Humble Elementary School will decrease from 67.6% to 53%.
The School Board finally contends that the changes at Cypress Point and Lincoln Elementary Schools will have a de minimis effect on desegregative efforts. All thirty-two students who are expected to be affected are black, and the School Board expects to retain the white students currently enrolled.
However, Plaintiffs object to the School Board’s proposed attendance zone plan. They contend that in 1964 all schools in the southern part of the City were racially segregated and, under this plan, they will remain so, while the School Board has made the efforts to desegregate the schools in the northern part of the City. They argue that the lack of impact of the proposed attendance zone plan is precisely the problem. They argue further that the School Board must
8

address the disparity of programs between the schools in the northern and southern part of the City. They further suggest that the School Board reestablish a Cypress Point zone for Carroll Junior High and High Schools, extend the attendance zone for Clark Magnet School, and establish a central fifth or sixth grade school in the southern part of the City to be used for the entire system, as means of bringing more white students into schools in the southern part of the City.
In response, the School Board notes that it has communicated with Plaintiffs the specific details of its proposed plan since February 2012, but heard no objections until June 12, 2012. Substantively, the School Board rejects Plaintiffs’ arguments as based on false assumptions and suppositions and ignoring the racial demographics of the City and the housing choices of its residents. The School Board points out that Mr. Hefner found that the racial makeup of students in the District is actually 85% black, in contrast to the general racial demographics of the City, and this fact limits the options for further desegregation. Further, the racial makeup of the schools in the southern part of Monroe is a reflection of the racial makeup of the families with school-age children who reside in those attendance zones, not a reflection of any actions taken by the School Board. The School Board takes issue with Plaintiffs’ statements that schools in the southern part of the City do not have the same programs as schools in the northern part of the City, such as drama, because Plaintiffs fail to acknowledge that there are also programs which are only offered in the schools in the southern part of the City.
The School Board also specifically addresses the proposals suggested by Plaintiffs, pointing out that any student in the District who qualifies for the magnet program may enroll at the Carroll schools or the Clark Magnet School and that Plaintiffs have failed to address the
9

practical and logistical issues associated with creating one fifth or sixth grade for the entire District. Finally, the School Board points out that an extension of the Cypress Point Elementary zone would have an insignificant impact on desegregating schools.
In conducting its review of the School Board’s proposed attendance zone plan and the potential effect on desegregation, the Court first notes that the standard mathematical formula for determining whether schools are racially identifiable is, as Mr. Hefner notes, “very limited in its usefulness.” [Doc. No. 48, Exh. 3, p. 11]. Since the District has an 85% black student population, any school which has less than a 65% black student population is racially identifiable as white, but schools which have a 100% black student population are not considered racially identifiable. Under these facts, the School Board’s proposed attendance zone plan will result in the creation of a racially identifiable school at Sallie Humble Elementary School since the black student population will decrease to 53%, but it will actually increase black student enrollment at Lexington Elementary School, which was already racially identifiable. Notably, both schools are located in the northern part of the City where there is a greater concentration of white students. However, the remainder of the schools objected to by Plaintiffs are not considered racially identifiable under the 20% deviation standard.
The very existence of one or more racially identifiable schools under a proposed attendance zone plan does not render the plan unconstitutional. “The constitutional command to desegregate schools does not mean that every school in every community must always reflect the racial composition of the school system as a whole.” Swann, 402 U.S. at 24. Rather, the Court must look at the entirety of the plan, keeping the goals of desegregation in mind. In this case, the Court has carefully considered the proposed attendance zone plan, prepared with the assistance of
10

a demographer well known and respected by this Court, as well as Plaintiffs’ objections. The Court finds that the proposed attendance zone plan is reasonable in light of the current housing choices of residents, racial demographics, and practical and logistical considerations. There is simply no evidence that this plan is the result of past discrimination or is designed to reestablish a dual educational system, but was, in fact, carefully prepared to address the goals of desegregation and the education of the children in the District.
Finally, the Court appreciates the concerns of Plaintiffs and remains focused on addressing all remaining unitary status issues in this case. However, the School Board has been granted unitary status in the area of extracurricular activities, and the existence of a drama program at one school versus other programs, such as the magnet programs at the Carroll schools, is simply not sufficient grounds for the Court to reject the School Board’s proposed attendance zone plan out of hand. Likewise, Plaintiffs offered alternative suggestions for student assignments, but failed to present sufficient evidence, despite the opportunity to do so, which would give the Court any indication whether their suggestions were feasible and practical solutions. III. CONCLUSION
After considering the proposed attendance zone plan presented by the School Board, the Court finds that it is neither designed to nor does promote resegregation and that it is an appropriate method of addressing the area of student assignments. Thus, the School Board’s Motion for Partial Relief from Judgment [Doc. No. 48] is GRANTED, and the Court will enter an
11

order granting the relief prayed for by the School Board. MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 20th day of June, 2012.
12

 
 Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ-KLH Document 80 Filed 08/15/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1048

L. Douglas Lawrence
Of Counsel Andrell Bowman Cooper

THE
LAWRENCE LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

1900 NORTH 18TH STREET, SUITE 307 MONROE, LOUISIANA 71201
E-MAIL: lawrence-law@live.com

Telephone: (318) 361-5004 Facsimile: (318) 361-5677

STATUS REPORT

Hon. Robert G. James, Judge United States District Court Western District of Louisiana 201 Jackson Street Monroe, Louisiana 71201

August 15, 2014

Re: Jimmy Andrews and United States of America -vs- No. 65:11,297 {USDC-Western District of LA-Monroe Division} Monroe City School Board

Dear Judge James:
As per this Court’s instructions of July 22, 2014, the following is presented as a Status Report, on behalf of the Monroe City School Board, on the matter of whether the School Board desires for the Monroe City School District to be declared unitary.
In response to multiple inquiries, the Monroe City School Board has not communicated to me (the School Board’s legal counsel) a desire or interest in seeking to have this Court declare the School District unitary. In addition, the School Board has not taken any affirmative step, by formal vote or otherwise, to authorize the School District’s legal counsel to file a motion or application with the Court seeking issuance of an order to declare the Monroe City School District unitary.
I trust that this Report is responsive to this Court’s Order of July 22, 2014.
Sincerely,
/s/ Doug Lawrence Doug Lawrence (18636) For the Monroe City School Board
cc. Franz R. Marshall, Esq. (via the Federal Court’s Electronic Filing System) Charles Kincade, Esq. (via the Federal Court’s Electronic Filing System)

 
 11/2/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana (Monroe) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ

Andrews et al v. Monroe et al Assigned to: Judge Robert G James Cause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Plaintiff Etta Mae Andrews on behalf of Jimmy Andrews
Plaintiff Odell Willis on behalf of Tommy Ray Robinson

Date Filed: 08/05/1965 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

V. Intervenor Plaintiff USA

represented by Michaele Nicole Turnage Young U S Dept of Justice (Penn Ave/4300) 950 Pennsylvania Ave N W PHB 4300 Washington, DC 20530 202-616-2669 Fax: 202-514-8337 Email: michaele.turnage.young@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 05/01/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison R Brown U S Dept of Justice Civ Rights Div 601 D St N W Ste 4300 Washington, DC 20530 202-305-3308 Fax: 202-514-8337 Email: Allison.Brown@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 02/21/2013
Franz Marshall U S Dept of Justice Civ Rights Div 601 D St N W Ste 4300 Washington, DC 20530 202-514-4092 Fax: 202-514-8337 Email: franz.r.marshall@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

1/30

11/2/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
J Ransdell Keene Law Ofﬁce of J Ransdell Keene 750 Southﬁeld Rd Ste C Shreveport, LA 71106 318-219-3921 Fax: 318-219-3920 Email: keene1040@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine W Vincent U S Attorneys Ofﬁce (LAF) 800 Lafayette St Ste 2200 Lafayette, LA 70501 337-262-6618 Fax: 337-262-6693 Email: katherine.vincent@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly D Gardner U S Dept of Justice Civil Rights Div (PENN) 950 Pennsylvania Ave N W Washington, DC 20530 202-305-3753 Fax: 202-514-8337 Email: kelly.gardner@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary J Mudrick U S Attorneys Ofﬁce (SHV) 300 Fannin St Ste 3201 Shreveport, LA 71101-3068 318-676-3600 Fax: 318-676-3660 Email: mary.mudrick@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa Julia Michaud U S Dept of Justice Civil Rights Div (Penn Ave) 950 Pennsylvania Ave N W Rm 4034 Washington, DC 20530 202-514-4092 Fax: 202-514-8337 Email: melissa.michaud@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 07/15/2013

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

Teresa Yeh U S Dept of Justice Civil Rights Div (PENN) 950 Pennsylvania Ave N W Washington, DC 20530 202-616-4784 Fax: 202-514-8337
2/30

11/2/2017
Intervenor Plaintiff Annie F Harris
Intervenor Plaintiff Benya F Marshall

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
Email: teresa.yeh@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Annie F Harris 501 Moore Ave Monroe, LA 71202 PRO SE
Charles L Kincade One Wood St Monroe, LA 71201 318-388-4205 Fax: 318-324-0877 Email: ckincadelaw@yahoo.com TERMINATED: 09/11/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benya F Marshall 500 South 1st St Monroe, LA 71202 PRO SE
Charles L Kincade (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant City of Monroe

represented by Leo Douglas Lawrence Lawrence Law FIrm 1900 N 18th St Ste 307 Monroe, LA 71201 318-361-5004 Fax: 318-361-5677 Email: lawrence-law@live.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen J Katz Rankin Yeldell et al 411 S Washington Bastrop, LA 71220 318-281-4913 Fax: 318-281-9819 Email: sztak@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

3/30

11/2/2017
Defendant W L Howard Mayor, City of Monroe

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
represented by Leo Douglas Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant School Board City of Monroe

Stephen J Katz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Leo Douglas Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
J H Scogin, Jr President, Monroe City School Board

Stephen J Katz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Leo Douglas Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
F C Breese, Jr Member, Monroe City School Board

Stephen J Katz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Leo Douglas Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
L S Daniel Member, Monroe City School Board

Stephen J Katz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Leo Douglas Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen J Katz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

W S Gonnaway Member, Monroe City School Board

represented by Leo Douglas Lawrence (See above for address)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

4/30

11/2/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Billy Hargiss Member, Monroe City School Board

Stephen J Katz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Leo Douglas Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Van D Odom Superintendent, Monroe City School Board

Stephen J Katz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Leo Douglas Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Board of Elementary & Secondary Education

Stephen J Katz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Angelique Duhon Freel LA Dept of Justice (N 3rd St) 1885 N 3rd St Baton Rouge, LA 70801 225-326-6029 Fax: 225-326-6098 Email: freela@ag.state.la.us TERMINATED: 08/28/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

Beth Conrad Langston La Dept of Justice (Sport) 430 Fannin St Ste 309 Shreveport, LA 71101 Fax: 225-326-6096 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

Cherie Andries Lato LA Dept of Justice (94005) P O Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9095 225-326-6021 Fax: 225-326-6098 Email: latoc@ag.state.la.us TERMINATED: 04/19/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY
5/30

11/2/2017
Defendant New Visions Learning Academy

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western DisLtriEctAofDLoAuisTiaTnaORNEY
Patricia H Wilton LA Atty Generals Ofﬁce (94005) P O Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9005 225-326-6369 Fax: 225-326-6490 Email: wiltonp@ag.state.la.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nelson D Taylor , Sr 1822 N Acadian Thruway W Baton Rouge, LA 70802 225-356-5252 Fax: 225-356-8355 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Intervenor Defendant
Brent Vidrine Superintendant Monroe City Schools

represented by Patrick Scott Wolleson Breithaupt Dunn et al P O Box 14106 Monroe, LA 71207 318-322-1202 Fax: 318-322-1984 Email: swolleson@bddswlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Movant Greg Jones

represented by Patrick Scott Wolleson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Russell A Woodard , Jr Breithaupt Dunn et al P O Box 14106 Monroe, LA 71207 318-322-1202 Fax: 318-322-1984 Email: rwoodard@bddswlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant

Nici Hanks

represented by Patrick Scott Wolleson

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

6/30

11/2/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western DisLtriEctAofDLoAuisTiaTnaORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Neville Alumi & Friends Association

Russell A Woodard , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Patrick Scott Wolleson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Russell A Woodard , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

08/01/1969

17 FILED IN WRONG CASE. PLEADING RE-DOCKETED IN CORRECT CASE. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND DECREE signed by Judge Ben Dawkins Jr and entered in the record 8/1/1969. Docketed in the record for purposes of availability on 04/01/10. (crt,Yocum, M) Modiﬁed to reﬂect ﬁled in wrong case on 4/13/2010 (Yocum, M). (Entered: 04/01/2010)

11/04/1969

18 FILED IN WRONG CASE. PLEADING RE-DOCKETED IN CORRECT CASE. DECREE signed by Judge Ben Dawkins Jr and entered in the record 11/4/1969. Docketed in the record for purposes of availability on 04/01/10. (crt,Yocum, M) Modiﬁed to reﬂect ﬁled in wrong case on 4/13/2010 (Yocum, M). (Entered: 04/01/2010)

08/17/1970

19 FILED IN WRONG CASE. PLEADING RE-DOCKETED IN CORRECT CASE. ORDER signed by Judge Ben Dawkins Jr and entered in the record 8/17/1970. Docketed in the record for purposes of availability on 04/01/10. (crt,Yocum, M) Modiﬁed to reﬂect ﬁled in wrong case on 4/13/2010 (Yocum, M). (Entered: 04/01/2010)

08/06/1971

20 FILED IN WRONG CASE. PLEADING RE-DOCKETED IN CORRECT CASE. CONSENT DECREE signed by Judge Ben Dawkins Jr and entered in the record 8/6/1971. Docketed in the record for purposes of availability on 04/01/10. (crt,Yocum, M) Modiﬁed to reﬂect ﬁled in wrong case on 4/13/2010 (Yocum, M). (Entered: 04/01/2010)

08/30/2000

CASE Assigned to Judge Robert G James. (crt,Thigpen, M) (Entered: 09/04/2008)

08/30/2000

CASE Assigned to Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes. (crt,Whidden, C) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

08/14/2008

2 MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Court, upon its own motion, hereby AMENDS the standing Decree and amendments as stated in this Order. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 08/14/08. (NOTE: This entry is made on the paper docket as well) (crt,Yocum, M) (Entered: 09/04/2008)

08/14/2008

3 MINUTE ENTRY: District Judge Status Conference set for 9/3/2008 01:30 PM in Chambers before Judge Robert G James. (This entry is made on the paper docket sheet as well.) Signed by Judge Robert G James on 08/14/08. (crt,Yocum, M) (Entered: 09/04/2008)

08/29/2008

1 PAPER DOCKET SHEET of ﬁlings through August 29, 2008. (crt,Yocum, M) (Entered: 09/04/2008)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

7/30

11/2/2017
09/03/2008 10/15/2008
11/03/2008 11/04/2008 11/10/2008 02/11/2009 02/13/2009 02/24/2009 10/14/2009 11/06/2009

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
4 MINUTE ENTRY: The status conference currently set for September 3, 2008 at 1:30 pm is hereby CONTINUED WITHOUT DATE. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 09/03/08. (crt,Yocum, M) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
5 STATUS REPORT by School Board Monroe City. (Attachments: # 1 Student Enrollment Report, Part 1, # 2 Student Enrollment Report, Part 2, # 3 Student Enrollment Report, Part 3, # 4 Student Enrollment Report, Part 4, # 5 Student Enrollment Report, Part 5, # 6 Student Enrollment Report, Part 6, # 7 Teacher Employment Rosture, Part 1, # 8 Teacher Employment Rosture, Part 2, # 9 Teacher Employment Rosture, Part 3, # 10 Teacher Employment Rosture, Part 4, # 11 Teacher Employment Rosture, Part 5, # 12 Teacher Employment Roster, Part 6, # 13 Teacher Employment Roster, Part 7, # 14 Teacher Employment Roster, Part 8, # 15 Teacher Employment Roster, Part 9, # 16 Teacher Employment Roster, Part 10, # 17 Teacher Employment Roster, Part 11, # 18 Teacher Employment Roster, Part 12, # 19 Teacher Employment Roster, Part 13, # 20 Teacher Employment Roster, Part 14, # 21 Teacher Employment Roster, Part 15, # 22 Teacher Employment Roster, Part 16, # 23 Teacher Employment Roster, Part 17)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Allison R Brown on behalf of USA (aty,Brown, Allison) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
7 MINUTE ENTRY: re 2 Memorandum Order. The Court has reviewed the annual report ﬁled in compliance with the Court's August 14, 2008 Order. Any party desiring a conference to discuss the status of the case or the steps for achieving unitary status may ﬁle the appropriate motion. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 11/3/08. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
8 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Beth Conrad Langston on behalf of Board of Elementary & Secondary Education, La Dept of Justice (Sport) 430 Fannin St Ste 309 Shreveport LA 71101, re: 7 Minute Entry, returned marked: Return to sender Not at this address. Action taken: unable to locate current contact information. Only counsel for this party. Did not set notice to "no". (crt,Alexander, E) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
9 MOTION for Cherie A. Lato to Enroll as Counsel by Board of Elementary & Secondary Education. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading Proposed Order)(aty,Lato, Cherie) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
10 ORDER granting 9 Motion to Enroll Cherie A Lato as Counsel for the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 02/13/09. (crt,Yocum, M) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
11 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Beth Conrad Langston, LA Dept of Justice (Sport), 430 Fannin St Ste 309, Shreveport, LA 71101, re: 10 Order on Motion to Enroll as Counsel returned marked: No longer at this address. Action taken: notice deactivated. (crt,Alexander, E) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
12 STATUS REPORT Annual Report to the Court by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 2009 Student Enrollent Report (Attachment 1), # 2 Exhibits Attachment 2, 2009 MCSB Teacher Stafﬁng Report)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
13 MINUTE ENTRY: re 12 Status Report ﬁled by School Board City of Monroe. Having reviewed the annual report ﬁled by the School Board, the Court is of the opinion that the parties should move toward unitary status and the termination of the litigation in this case. Therefore a status conference is hereby set in the above-referenced matter for December 2, 2009, at 2:30 P.M. ( District Judge Status Conference set for 12/2/2009 at 2:30 PM in

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

8/30

11/2/2017
12/02/2009 03/26/2010 03/30/2010
04/01/2010
04/07/2010
04/08/2010
04/13/2010 04/16/2010 04/19/2010 06/30/2010

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
Monroe, 2nd ﬂoor before Chief Judge Robert G James). Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 11/5/09. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
14 MINUTES for proceedings held before Chief Judge Robert G James: STATUS CONFERENCE held on 12/2/2009. (crt,Yocum, M) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
15 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT by School Board City of Monroe, USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(aty,Brown, Allison) Modiﬁed to remove duplicate text on 3/26/2010. (Alexander, E) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
16 CONSENT DECREE: IT IS THE RULING OF THIS COURT, that the Monroe City School Board shall implement, inter alia the policies detailed in this Order to address certain of its desegregation obligations. The parties to this Consent Decree agree that the prior orders of this Court shall continue in full force and effect except to the extent that they are modiﬁed by this Order. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 3/30/10. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
FILED IN WRONG CASE. REMARK RE-DOCKETED IN CORRECT CASE. REMARK: Document Nos. 17 8/1/1969 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND DECREE, 18 11/4/1969 DECREE, 19 8/17/1970 ORDER, & 20 8/6/1971 CONSENT DECREE pleadings have been entered into the record for purposes of availability. Documents are the entered as the ﬁrst pleadings available on the docket sheet due to ﬁle date. (crt,Yocum, M) Modiﬁed to reﬂect ﬁled in wrong case on 4/13/2010 (Yocum, M). (Entered: 04/01/2010)
21 DEFICIENT MOTION to Substitute Attorney Angelique Duhon Freel in place of Cherie A. Lato by Board of Elementary & Secondary Education. (Attachments: # 1 Text of proposed order)(aty,Freel, Angelique) Modiﬁed on 4/8/2010 to reﬂect submission is deﬁcient. (Alexander, E) Modiﬁed on 4/16/2010 to remove "?" from docket text. Motion resubmitted in its entirety and ﬁled as document 23 . (Alexander, E) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
22 NOTICE of Deﬁciency to Angelique Duhon Freel on behalf of Board of Elementary & Secondary Education regarding 21 DEFICIENT ? MOTION to Substitute Attorney Angelique Duhon Freel in place of Cherie A. Lato. Reason: An original signature of withdrawing attorney is required for the ﬁling of this motion. Please also refer to LR5.7.08W regarding electronic ﬁling of documents requiring signatures of more than on party. (crt,Alexander, E) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
NOTICE of Corrective Action regarding 17 Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Decree; 18 Decree; 19 Order, and 20 Consent Decree. Action taken: Edited text of entries to reﬂect Filed in Wrong Case. Docket Clerk has re-ﬁled in the correct case. (crt,Yocum, M) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
23 MOTION to Substitute Attorney Angelique Duhon Freel in place of Cherie A. Lato by Board of Elementary & Secondary Education. (Attachments: # 1 Text of proposed order) (aty,Freel, Angelique) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
24 ORDER granting 23 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Cherie Andries Lato terminated. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 4/19/10. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
25 STATUS REPORT June 30th Consent Decree Report by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits Teacher Rostures, # 2 Exhibits Student Course Enrollment Data, # 3 Exhibits Information Disseminated to 9th Graders, # 4 Exhibits Information Disseminated o/b/o CHS, # 5 Exhibits Information Disseminated to WHS Incoming Freshmen)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 06/30/2010)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

9/30

11/2/2017
08/30/2010 09/02/2010
09/15/2010 10/11/2010 06/30/2011 07/05/2011 07/11/2011 07/11/2011

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
26 MOTION for Relief from Judgment or for Clariﬁcation of Obligation(s) to Furnish Free Transportation to Nonpublic School Students by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certiﬁcate of Service, # 3 Exhibit 1 (R.S. 17:158), # 4 Exhibit 2 (Act 750), # 5 Exhibit 3 (Brumﬁeld v. Dodd approved schools in Louisiana), # 6 Memorandum / Brief)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) Modiﬁed on 8/31/2010 to edit text (Smith, C). (Entered: 08/30/2010)
27 MINUTE ENTRY: re 26 MOTION for Relief from Judgment or for Clariﬁcation of Obligation(s) to Furnish Free Transportation to Nonpublic School Students ﬁled by School Board City of Monroe. Having reviewed MCSB's motion, the Court does not believe that a modiﬁcation to the desegregation decree is necessary in this case. Rather, the Court believes that MCSB has a duty to comply with state law unless or until its compliance is in conﬂict with its desegregation obligations. In its motion, MCSB states that neither the United States Department of Justice nor the State of Louisiana has any opposition to MCSB's request. It is unknown whether Plaintiffs Annie F. Harris and Benya Marshall have an objection, although their counsel was provided a copy of this motion. If any party has an objection to MCSB's intent to provide transportation to nonpublic students in compliance with LA. Rev. Stat. 17:158(A)(1), the party should ﬁle an opposition memorandum within ten (10) days from the date of this minute entry. If no memorandum is ﬁled, an order granting the motion shall issue. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 9/2/10. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 09/02/2010)
28 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 26 Motion for Relief from Judgment or to Clarify Obligations Imposed by this Court Relative to the Transportation of the Monroe City School District as stated in this Order. MCSB shall comply with the provisions of LA.Rev.Stat. 17:158(A)(1) with regard to transportation of non-public school students unless or until its compliance conﬂicts with its duties under federal desegregation law. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 9/15/10. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 09/15/2010)
29 STATUS REPORT on 2010 Enrollment & Stafﬁng by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits Student Enrollment Report, # 2 Exhibits Student Enrollment Summary Report, # 3 Exhibits Teacher Stafﬁng Report, by School)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 10/11/2010)
30 STATUS REPORT June 30th Consent Decree Report by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 School Staff Rosters, # 2 Student Enrollment Data, # 3 CHS Student Information, # 4 CHS TOPS Information, # 5 NHS Student Information, # 6 NHS Registration Policy Guide, # 7 WHS Student Information, # 8 Magnet Program Book, # 9 Magnet Program Push Card)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) Modiﬁed to remove excess text on 7/1/2011. (Alexander, E) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
31 ELECTRONIC MINUTE ENTRY: A Telephone Status Conference is hereby set for 7/12/2011 at 1:00 PM before Chief Judge Robert G James. Counsel are to conference together and call Chambers at 318-322-6230 when all parties are present. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 07/05/2011. (crt,Floyd, J) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
32 MOTION for Partial Relief from Judgment by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum / Brief In Support of Motion for Partial Relief From Judgment, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Text of proposed order, # 5 Text of proposed order for Hearing, # 6 Certiﬁcate of Service)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) Modiﬁed to remove duplicate and excess text on 7/11/2011. (Alexander, E) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
32 MOTION for Hearing by School Board City of Monroe. ADMINISTRATIVE ENTRY as 32 Motion for Partial Relief from Judgment electronically ﬁled without selecting all reliefs requested in motion. (crt,Alexander, E) (Entered: 07/11/2011)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

10/30

11/2/2017
07/11/2011 07/12/2011
07/19/2011 07/19/2011 07/20/2011
07/22/2011 07/25/2011 10/25/2011 10/28/2011 10/31/2011 10/31/2011 11/09/2011

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
33 NOTICE of Motion Setting regarding 32 MOTION for Partial Relief from Judgment. Motions referred to Robert G James. (crt,Alexander, E) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
34 MINUTES for proceedings held before Chief Judge Robert G James: TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE held on 7/12/2011. The School board has ﬁled a Motion for Partial Relief from Judgment 32 . The School Board has requested expedited consideration because Cypress Point is overcrowded, and it wished to make these transfers beginning with the 2011-2012 school, which begins in August. Accordingly, the DOJ and Plaintiffs have until July 19, 2011, to ﬁle oppositi9on memoranda. If no opposition or motion for extension of time is ﬁled by July 19th, the Court will review the School board's motion and issue the appropriate order. ( Compliance Deadline set for 7/19/2011). (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
35 First MOTION FOR EXTENSION of Time to Enter Agreement re: 6th Grade Students at Cypress Point Elem with consent by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of proposed order) (aty,Vincent, Katherine) Modiﬁed text on 7/20/2011. (Alexander, E) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
35 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION for Partial Relief from Judgment with consent by USA. ADMINISTRATIVE ENTRY as 35 Motion for Extension of Time to Enter Agreement electronically ﬁled without selecting all reliefs requested in motion. (crt,Alexander, E) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
36 ORDER granting 35 Motion to Extend. Compliance Deadline reset for 7/22/2011 to either ﬁnalize an agreement regarding the sixth-grade students at Cypress Point Elementary School or for the United States and private Plaintiffs to ﬁle a response to the Monroe City School Board's Motion for Partial Relief from Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 7/20/11. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
37 AMENDED DOCUMENT by School Board City of Monroe. Amended Order Granting Partial Relief from Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Exhibit A, # 2 Attorney Certiﬁcate)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
38 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 32 Motion FOR Partial Relief from Judgment as stated in this Order. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 7/25/11. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
39 MINUTE ENTRY: District Judge Status Conference set for 11/9/2011 at 3:00 PM in Monroe, 2nd ﬂoor before Chief Judge Robert G James. Counsel and parties may attend in person or by telephone. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 10/25/11. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 10/25/2011)
40 MOTION FOR EXTENSION of Time to File Annual Summative Report on Student Enrollment & Staff Assignments with consent sought but not yet obtained by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of proposed order Extending Deadline) (aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
41 ORDER granting 40 Motion to Extend Time for ﬁling the annual student enrollment and stafﬁng reports. Compliance Deadline set for 10/31/2011. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 10/31/11. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
42 STATUS REPORT on Student Enrollment & Stafﬁng for 2011 by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-A Student Enrollment Report for 2011, # 2 Exhibit 1-B Stafﬁng Report for 2011)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
43 MINUTE ENTRY: re 39 Minute Entry Setting Status Conference. District Judge Status Conference scheduled for today at 3:00 PM is re-set for 11/15/2011 at 2:00 PM in

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

11/30

11/2/2017
11/16/2011
12/29/2011 04/30/2012 05/08/2012
05/25/2012 05/25/2012 06/05/2012
06/12/2012 06/13/2012 06/14/2012 06/15/2012

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
Monroe, 2nd ﬂoor before Chief Judge Robert G James. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 11/9/11. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
44 MINUTES for proceedings held before Chief Judge Robert G James: STATUS CONFERENCE held on 11/16/2011. Based on the current efforts of the parties and counsel, the Court ﬁnds that no action on its part is necessary at this time. The School Board shall ﬁle a status report no later than December 30, 2011. If DOJ or Plaintiffs have a response to the School Board's report, they should ﬁle the response by January 13, 2012. ( Status Report due by 12/30/2011). (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
45 STATUS REPORT ON REZONING by School Board City of Monroe. (aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 12/29/2011)
46 MINUTE ENTRY: setting Telephone Conference for 5/7/2012 at 01:30 PM by phone before Chief Judge Robert G James. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 04/30/12. (crt,Yocum, M) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
47 MINUTES for proceedings held before Chief Judge Robert G James: TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE held on 5/8/2012. Given issues arising in this case and the Court's desire that the School Board continue to move towards achieving unitary status, a telephone conference is set for June 18, 2012, at 10 A.M. Counsel should conference together and contact Chambers at 318-322-6230 or may set up a conference call and provide the dial-in information to participants. ( District Judge Telephone Status Conference set for 6/18/2012 at 10:00 AM before Chief Judge Robert G James). (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 05/08/2012)
48 MOTION Partial Relief From Judgment (Civ. R. 60) by School Board City of Monroe. Motions referred to Karen L Hayes. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum / Brief, # 2 Text of proposed order, # 3 Exhibit Demographic Report, # 4 Exhibit Supplementarl Demographic Report)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
49 NOTICE of Motion Setting regarding 48 MOTION Partial Relief From Judgment (Civ. R. 60) . Motions referred to Robert G James. (crt,Kennedy, T) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
50 MINUTE ENTRY: re 48 MOTION Partial Relief From Judgment (Civ. R. 60) ﬁled by School Board City of Monroe. It is the Court's understanding that the United States Department of Justice does not oppose the motion. If Plaintiffs wish to ﬁle a memorandum in opposition or response to the motion, they must do so no later than June 12, 2012. ( Compliance Deadline set for 6/12/2012). Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 6/4/12. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
51 RESPONSE to Motion re 48 MOTION Partial Relief From Judgment (Civ. R. 60) ﬁled by Annie F Harris. (aty,Kincade, Charles) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
52 DEFICIENT REPLY to Response to Motion re 48 MOTION Partial Relief From Judgment (Civ. R. 60) ﬁled by School Board City of Monroe. (aty,Lawrence, Leo) Modiﬁed to reﬂect document as deﬁcient on 6/15/2012. (Kennedy, T) Modiﬁed to remove "?" from docket text on 7/16/2012. See document #57 and 58 Ruling and Order. (Kennedy, T) (Entered: 06/13/2012)
53 MINUTE ENTRY Setting a hearing on 48 MOTION Partial Relief From Judgment (Civ. R. 60) for June 18, 2012 at 10:00 AM, in Monroe, 2nd ﬂoor before Chief Judge Robert G James. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 6/14/12. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
54 NOTICE of Deﬁciency to Leo Douglas Lawrence on behalf of School Board City of Monroe regarding 52 Reply to Response to Motion. Reason: This reply brief exceeds ten

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

12/30

11/2/2017
06/18/2012
06/18/2012
06/20/2012 06/20/2012 06/21/2012 06/29/2012 06/29/2012 08/01/2012 08/02/2012 10/31/2012

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
pages. Please see LR7.8 for information regarding length of reply briefs. (crt,Kennedy, T) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
55 MINUTES for proceedings held before Chief Judge Robert G James: STATUS CONFERENCE held on 6/18/2012. The Court raised the issue of the pending March 30,2010 Consent Decree. Under that Decree, a unitary status review is set to take place after June 30,2014. However, it is the intent of the Court that the parties take afﬁrmative steps to address any issues that would prevent a unitary status ﬁnding in 2014. As issues arise, the Court expects the parties to attempt to reach an amicable resolution or to contact the Court for a hearing to resolve the issues, rather than waiting to conduct a review in 2014. In the upcoming June 30, 2012 status report, the Court expects the School Board to identify and address any unresolved issues. DOJ's counsel raised concerns about the effect recent education legislation in Louisiana might have on desegregation cases. All parties agreed that they were concerned about the potential effects, but the Court and the parties agreed that it is unclear what those effects may be at this time. The Court's intent is to continue to move forward and to address problems as they arise. The Court and the parties also addressed the pending Motion for Partial Relief. The DOJ does not oppose the motion. The Court indicated that it would issue a ruling very shortly. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
56 MINUTES for proceedings held before Chief Judge Robert G James: MOTION HEARING held on 6/18/2012 re 48 MOTION Partial Relief From Judgment (Civ. R. 60) ﬁled by School Board City of Monroe. The Court authorized the reply of Mr. Lawrence in excess of 10 pages to be ﬁled. After consultation with parties, the Court took this matter under advisement and a written ruling to be issued shortly. (Court Reporter: Debbie Lowery) (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
57 RULING re 48 MOTION Partial Relief From Judgment (Civ. R. 60) ﬁled by School Board City of Monroe. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 6/20/12. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
58 ORDER: For the reasons set forth in this Court's Ruling 57 , the Court GRANTS 48 Motion for Partial Relief from Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 6/20/12. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
59 CORRECTED ATTACHMENT (Summary of Changes in Attendance Zone Descriptions) to 58 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
60 MOTION FOR EXTENSION of Deadline for Filing Annual June 30th Report with consent by School Board City of Monroe. Motions referred to Karen L Hayes. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
61 ORDER granting 60 Motion for Extension. Compliance Deadline set for 7/31/2012 for ﬁling annual report on desegregation. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 6/29/12. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
62 STATUS REPORT by School Board City of Monroe. (aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
63 EXHIBITS (Notice of Manual Attachment) re 62 Status Report ﬁled by School Board City of Monroe. (crt,Dickerson, D) Modiﬁed to indicate exhibits are located on the shelf (Green Card) in Monroe as a Notice of Manual Attachment on 10/1/2012 (Yocum, M). (Entered: 08/02/2012)
64 STATUS REPORT on Enrollment & Stafﬁng by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit School District Student Enrollment Report, # 2 Exhibit

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

13/30

11/2/2017
02/06/2013 02/07/2013
02/14/2013 02/14/2013 02/15/2013
02/19/2013 02/21/2013 06/30/2013
07/11/2013 07/15/2013

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
Composite Student Enrollment Report, by School, # 3 Exhibit Composite Certiﬁed Staff Report, by School)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
65 NOTICE of Appearance by Melissa Julia Michaud on behalf of USA (aty,Michaud, Melissa) Modiﬁed to reﬂect document as deﬁcient on 2/7/2013. (Kennedy, T) Modiﬁed to remove deﬁciency status on 2/15/2013. See document 67 Motion. (Kennedy, T) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
66 NOTICE of Deﬁciency to Melissa Julia Michaud on behalf of USA regarding 65 Notice of Appearance. Reason: This party is already represented by other counsel. Please refer to provisions under LR83.2.12 regarding appearance of other counsel to ensure compliance with this rule. A motion to enroll as co-counsel or to substitute counsel (signed by the current counsel of record) is required to remedy this situation. (Please also refer to LR5.7.08 regarding electronic ﬁling of documents requiring signatures of more than one party.). (crt,Kennedy, T) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
67 MOTION to Substitute Attorney ﬁled by USA regarding 65 Notice of Appearance . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order)(aty,Michaud, Melissa) Modiﬁed event to more accurately identify the pleading submitted on 2/15/2013. Modiﬁed to reﬂect document as deﬁcient. (Kennedy, T) Modiﬁed to remove deﬁciency status on 2/20/2013. See document 69 Corrective Document. (Kennedy, T) (Entered: 02/14/2013)
NOTICE of Corrective Action to Melissa Julia Michaud on behalf of USA regarding 67 MOTION to Substitute Attorney. Action taken: Modiﬁed event to more accurately identify the pleading submitted. (crt,Kennedy, T) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
68 NOTICE of Deﬁciency to Melissa Julia Michaud on behalf of USA regarding 67 MOTION to Substitute Attorney. Reason: This party is already represented by other counsel. Please refer to provisions under LR83.2.12 regarding appearance of other counsel to ensure compliance with this rule. A motion to enroll as co-counsel or to substitute counsel (signed by the current counsel of record) is required to remedy this situation. (Please also refer to LR5.7.08 regarding electronic ﬁling of documents requiring signatures of more than one party.). (crt,Kennedy, T) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
69 CORRECTIVE DOCUMENT entitled Motion to Substitute Attorney ﬁled by USA regarding 67 MOTION to Substitute Attorney . (Attachments: # 1 Text of proposed order) (aty,Michaud, Melissa) (Entered: 02/19/2013)
70 ORDER granting 67 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Melissa Julia Michaud added as counsel for U S A. Attorney Allison R Brown terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 2/21/13. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
71 STATUS REPORT June 30th Consent Decree Report by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CHS Faculty Credentials & Student Enrollment, # 2 Exhibit CHS Teacher Schedules 2012-13, # 3 Exhibit CHS Registration & Course Offerings, # 4 Exhibit CHS Magnet Course Brochures, # 5 Exhibit NHS Teacher Rosture & Course Schedules, # 6 Exhibit NHS Course Offerings, # 7 Exhibit WHS Course Offerings, # 8 Exhibit WHS Extracurricular Activity Brochure, # 9 Exhibit WHS Graduation Requirements)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 06/30/2013)
72 MOTION to Withdraw Melissa J. Michaud as Attorney by USA. Motions referred to Karen L Hayes. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order)(aty,Michaud, Melissa) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
73 ORDER granting 72 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Melissa Julia Michaud terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 7/15/13. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 07/15/2013)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

14/30

11/2/2017
10/14/2013

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
74 Consent Decree October 15th STATUS REPORT by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2013-14 Student Count-By Schools & Ethnicity, # 2 Exhibit October 1, 2013 MFP Student Count, # 3 Exhibit 2013-14 Report of Teaching Staff by School, Race & Credentials)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 10/14/2013)

05/13/2014

75 MINUTE ENTRY: re 55 Status Conference. The parties March 30, 2010 Consent Decree remains pending before the Court. In its June 19, 2012 Minutes [Doc. No. 55], the Court previously instructed the parties to identify and address any unresolved issues which would prevent the Court from conducting a unitary status review on or after June 30, 2014. If the parties could not resolve the issues amicably, they were instructed to notify the Court and request a hearing. The parties have not contacted the Court about unresolved issues, nor have they requested a status conference on this topic. Accordingly, the Court anticipates that the parties will ﬁle a joint motion for unitary status on or after June 30, 2014. If the Department of Justice, the Monroe City School Board, or the individual Plaintiffs have any remaining concerns about issues related to the Green factors, they must ﬁle a motion for a status conference immediately. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 5/13/14. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 05/13/2014)

06/27/2014

76 Annual June 30th Consent Decree STATUS REPORT due June 30, 2014 by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Carroll High School Teacher Roster & Credentials 2014, # 2 Exhibit Neville High School Teacher Roster & Credentials, # 3 Exhibit Wossman High School Teacher Roster & Credentials, # 4 Exhibit CHS Master Schedule, # 5 Exhibit NHS Master Schedule, # 6 Exhibit WHS Master Schedule, # 7 Exhibit CHS Student Course Offerings, # 8 Exhibit CHS Medical Magnet Program & Attendance Contract, # 9 Exhibit CHS Medical Magnet Brochure, # 10 Exhibit CHS Medical Magnet-Certiﬁcations for Students Recruitment Brochure, # 11 Exhibit NHS Registration Policy Guide, # 12 Exhibit WHS Course Descriptions, # 13 Exhibit WHS Freshman Orientation Guide)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 06/27/2014)

07/09/2014

77 MINUTE ENTRY setting Telephone Conference for 7/22/2014 at 1:00 PM by phone before Judge Robert G James. Counsel shall conference together and contact Chambers at (318)322-6230 when all counsel are present. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 07/09/2014. (crt,Yocum, M) (Entered: 07/09/2014)

07/10/2014

78 Amended/Supplemental Consent Decree STATUS REPORT by School Board City of Monroe. (aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 07/10/2014)

07/22/2014

79 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE held on 7/22/2014. After discussion, the Court set a deadline of August 18, 2014, for the School Board to ﬁle a motion for unitary status, or for the parties to ﬁle a status report in the record. ( Compliance Deadline set for 8/18/2014). (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 07/23/2014)

08/15/2014

80 STATUS REPORT ON UNITARY STATUS by School Board City of Monroe. (aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 08/15/2014)

10/15/2014

81 Monroe City School Board 2014 STATUS REPORT on Student Enrollment & Teacher Stafﬁng by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Students Ethnicity & Gender Report (JPAMS), # 2 Exhibit Minimum Foundation Program Student Membership Report 2014-15, # 3 Exhibit Barkdull-Faulk Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng Report, # 4 Exhibit Berg Jones Elementary School Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng Report, # 5 Exhibit Carroll High School Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng Report, # 6 Exhibit Carroll Jr. High School Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng Report, # 7 Exhibit Carver Elementary School Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng Report, # 8 Exhibit Clara Hall Elementary School Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng Report, # 9 Exhibit Cypress Point Elementary School Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng Report, # 10 Exhibit J.S. Clark Elementary School Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng Report, # 11 Exhibit Jefferson Upper Elementary School Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

15/30

11/2/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
Report, # 12 Exhibit Lee Jr. High School Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng Report, # 13 Exhibit Lexington Elementary School Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng Report, # 14 Exhibit Lincoln Elementary School Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng Report, # 15 Exhibit Madison James Foster Elementary School CertiﬁedTeacher Stafﬁng Report, # 16 Exhibit M. L. King, Jr. Middle School Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng Report, # 17 Exhibit Minnie Rufﬁn Elementary School Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng Report, # 18 Exhibit Neville High School Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng Report, # 19 Exhibit Sallie Humble Elementary School Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng Report, # 20 Exhibit Sherrouse DAP (Alternative School) Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng Report, # 21 Exhibit Wossman High School Certiﬁed Teacher Stafﬁng Report) (aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 10/15/2014)

01/06/2015

82 ELECTRONIC MINUTE ENTRY: District Judge Telephone Status Conference set for 1/12/2015 at 2:30 PM before Judge Robert G James. Chambers will provide Counsel with call-in information. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 01/06/2015. (crt,Floyd, J) (Entered: 01/06/2015)

01/12/2015

83 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 1/12/2015. After discussion, the Court set another Telephone Conference for 2/2/2015 09:30 AM before Judge Robert G James. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 01/14/2015)

02/02/2015

84 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE held on 2/2/2015. Mr. Lawrence reported that the School Board has requested time to thoroughly consider and review the desegregation status before taking any further action in this Court. Mr. Marshall had no opposition to the School board's request. After discussion, the Court set another telephone status conference for 5/11/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Robert G James. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 02/02/2015)

05/13/2015

85 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE held on 5/13/2015. Mr. Lawrence reported that the School board does not intend to ﬁle a motion for a unitary status hearing at this time. The DOJ also requested additional time to review the capital outlay for the schools in the District. After discussion, the Court set another District Judge Telephone Status Conference for 6/15/2015 at 1:00 PM before Judge Robert G James. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 05/13/2015)

06/15/2015

86 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE held on 6/15/2015. Mr. Lawrence reported that he informed the School Board of the Courts intent to conduct a sua sponte unitary status review. However, the School Board still does not intend to ﬁle a motion for a unitary status hearing at this time. The DOJ has reviewed the case and does not intend to take any further action. The Court informed counsel that it would take this matter under consideration and advise them of its intent. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 06/16/2015)

06/16/2015

87 MINUTE ENTRY: After having conducted a telephone status conference in the abovereferenced matter, the Court ﬁnds that it is now appropriate to set a hearing to determine whether the Monroe City School Board has achieved unitary status in the district. Accordingly, an evidentiary hearing is set for September 21, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. A prehearing conference will be conducted by the undersigned on September 8, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. in Chambers. The Court will address any evidentiary issues and pre-trial submissions at the conference. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 6/16/15. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 06/16/2015)

06/30/2015

88 Annual June 30th Consent Decree STATUS REPORT (2015) by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CHS Faculty Credentials, # 2 Exhibit NHS-Joint Class Enrollment & Faculty Credentials, # 3 Exhibit WHS Faculty Credentials, # 4 Exhibit CHS Student Registration Packet, # 5 Exhibit CHS Medical Magnet Brochure, #

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

16/30

11/2/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
6 Exhibit NHS Registration Policy Guide, # 7 Exhibit WHS Course Offerings, # 8 Exhibit CHS Student Classroom Enrollment by Teacher, Ethnicity & Gender, # 9 Exhibit WHS Student Classroom Enrollment by Teacher, Ethnicity & Gender, # 10 Exhibit WHS Advanced Placement Bulletin (substituted for 2014-15), # 11 Exhibit WHS Freshman Orientation Documents)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 06/30/2015)

07/28/2015

89 Supplemental STATUS REPORT Amending and Supplementing June 30, 2015 Consent Decree Report by School Board City of Monroe. (aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 07/28/2015)

08/10/2015

90 Unopposed MOTION for Michaele N. Turnage Young to Enroll as Counsel by USA. Motions referred to Karen L Hayes. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order)(Attorney Michaele Nicole Turnage-Young added to party USA(pty:intvp))(aty,Turnage-Young, Michaele) (Entered: 08/10/2015)

08/12/2015

91 ORDER granting 90 Motion to Enroll as Counsel. Michaele N Turnage Young added as co-counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 8/12/15. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 08/12/2015)

08/14/2015

92 MINUTE ENTRY: A pre-hearing conference is set in this matter on September 8, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. in Chambers. Counsel for the Department of Justice will be permitted to attend the pre-hearing conference by telephone. Counsel should contact Chambers by calling (318)322-6230 at the appointed time. Counsel for the City of Monroe and any other parties should attend in person. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 8/14/15. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 08/14/2015)

08/27/2015

93 MOTION to Substitute Attorney Patricia Wilton in place of Angelique Duhon Freel with consent sought but not yet obtained by Board of Elementary & Secondary Education. Motions referred to Karen L Hayes. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order)(aty,Freel, Angelique) (Entered: 08/27/2015)

08/27/2015

94 Unopposed MOTION for Kelly D. Gardner to Enroll as Counsel by USA. Motions referred to Karen L Hayes. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order)(aty,Gardner, Kelly) (Entered: 08/27/2015)

08/28/2015

95 ORDER granting 93 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Patricia H Wilton for Board of Elementary & Secondary Education. Attorney Angelique Duhon Freel terminated as counsel in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 8/28/15. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 08/28/2015)

08/28/2015

96 ORDER granting 94 Motion to Enroll as Counsel. Added as counsel Kelly D Gardner for USA. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 8/28/15. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 08/28/2015)

09/08/2015

97 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: IN CHAMBERS CONFERENCE held on 9/8/2015. This matter is presently set for a unitary status hearing on September 21, 2015. Although the hearing was set sua sponte by the Court, the School Board has retained Dr. Gordon because of his previous experience with this case. He is not available, however, on the current hearing date. The Court may wish to proceed, at least in certain areas, on that date. Ms. Turnage Young raised the DOJs concerns about the School Boards compliance with the 2010 Consent Decree. The undersigned instructed the parties to work together over the next week to resolve these issues, if possible. Counsel must email a status report by the end of the day on September 14, 2015, to james_courtesycopies@lawd.uscourts.gov. After reviewing the status report, the Court will consider whether the hearing should be continued. Finally, Mr. Marshall raised the issue of the individual Plaintiffs. Since the demise of their counsel, Plaintiffs have not retained other counsel or notiﬁed the Court of their desire to participate pro se. Mr. Lawrence does have contact information for the Plaintiffs. Once that contact information

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

17/30

11/2/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
is provided, the Court will instruct the Clerk of Court to provide copies of the ﬁlings in this matter, so that it is clear that the Plaintiffs have notice of the proceedings. (crt,DickersonSld, D) Modiﬁed on 9/25/2015 to correct ﬁling date (DickersonSld, D). (Entered: 09/09/2015)

09/15/2015

98 MINUTE ENTRY: The unitary status hearing currently set for September 21, 2015 will go forward as scheduled. Counsel should be prepared to present any witnesses and evidence available to address the remaining Green factors of student assignment, teacher and principal assignment, and transportation. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 9/15/15. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 09/15/2015)

09/21/2015

99 ORAL MOTION to File Status Report dated September 14, 2015 in the record by USA. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 09/22/2015)

09/21/2015 100 ORAL MOTION to Introduce Exhibit D-1 by City of Monroe. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 09/22/2015)

09/21/2015

101 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: Hearing on Unitary Status held this date. Testimony and Evidence heard this date. Oral Motion to File Status Report dated 9/14/2015 into the Record by USA. Oral Order granting 99 Motion. Oral Motion by Defendant to ﬁle Exhibit D-1. Oral Order granting 100 Motion. This matter will resume Tuesday, September 22, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. (Court Reporter: Debbie Lowery) (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 09/22/2015)

09/21/2015 102 STATUS REPORT by USA and City of Monroe. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 09/22/2015)

09/22/2015

103 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: HEARING on Unitary Status Day 2 held on 9/22/2015. Testimony and evidence concluded. Case Argued. The Court takes this matter under advisement. (Court Reporter: Debbie Lowery) (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 09/23/2015)

09/22/2015 104 WITNESS LIST ﬁled (restricted access). (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 09/23/2015)

09/22/2015

105 EXHIBIT LIST for Hearing on Unitary Status. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/23/2015: # 1 Exhibits 1-6 & 8-9, # 2 Exhibit 7, # 3 Exhibit 10 12) (DickersonSld, D). (Entered: 09/23/2015)

09/25/2015 106 MEMORANDUM RULING on Sua Sponte Consideration of Unitary Status. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 9/25/15. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 09/25/2015)

09/25/2015

107 ORDER re 106 Memorandum Ruling. IT IS ORDERED that the Monroe City School District is DECLARED unitary in the areas of transportation and student assignments. The District has not achieved unitary status in the area of principal and teacher assignments and has not fully complied with the March 30, 2010 Consent Order. The District shall remain under the Courts supervision at this time. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than November 20, 2015, the parties shall either ﬁle a jointly proposed consent decree, or they shall ﬁle a status report indicating that no agreement can be reached. If no agreement is reached and if appropriate, the Court will hold another hearing on December 7, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 9/25/15. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 09/25/2015)

11/20/2015

108 Joint STATUS REPORT by School Board City of Monroe, USA. (aty,Vincent, Katherine) (Entered: 11/20/2015)

12/02/2015

109 MINUTE ENTRY: Having reviewed the parties joint status report, the Court hereby EXTENDS the deadline for the ﬁling of a jointly proposed consent decree to December 11, 2015. Additionally, the hearing in the above-referenced matter, currently set for December 7, 2015, is hereby CONTINUED and RE-SET to December 14, 2015, at 9:00

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

18/30

11/2/2017
12/10/2015 12/10/2015 12/10/2015 12/11/2015 12/11/2015 12/11/2015 12/14/2015
12/14/2015
01/12/2016
01/21/2016

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
a.m. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 12/2/15. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
110 Joint MOTION for Approval and Entry of the Proposed Consent Decree by USA, City of Monroe School Board. Motions referred to Karen L Hayes. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed order)(aty,Turnage Young, Michaele) Modiﬁed on 12/10/2015 to add ﬁlers (Williams, L). (Entered: 12/10/2015)
Motions Transferred regarding 110 Joint MOTION for Approval and Entry of the Proposed Consent Decree . Motions referred to Robert G James. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
111 CORRECTIVE DOCUMENT entitled Corrected Certiﬁcate of Service ﬁled by USA regarding 110 Joint MOTION for Approval and Entry of the Proposed Consent Decree . (aty,Turnage Young, Michaele) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
112 ORDER granting 110 Motion for Approval and Entry of Proposed Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 12/11/15. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
113 CONSENT DECREE by all parties. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 12/11/15. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
114 MINUTE ENTRY: The Court has granted the parties Joint Motion for Approval and Entry of the Proposed Consent Decree and has ordered that the Consent Decree be ﬁled in the record. Accordingly, the hearing, set for December 14, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., is CANCELLED. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 12/11/15. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
115 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings for Evidentiary Hearing - Testimony of Brenda Shelling held on 9/21/2015 before Judge Robert G. James. Court Reporter: Debbie Lowery, Telephone number 318-361-0380. Pages: 57. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER or the Court Reporter. Redaction Request due 1/7/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/19/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/17/2016. (crt,Lowery, D) (Entered: 12/14/2015)
116 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings for Evidentiary Hearing - Testimony of Rodney McFarland held on 9/22/2015 before Judge Robert G. James. Court Reporter: Debbie Lowery, Telephone number 318-361-0380. Pages: 43. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER or the Court Reporter. Redaction Request due 1/7/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/19/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/17/2016. (crt,Lowery, D) (Entered: 12/14/2015)
117 MINUTE ENTRY: Upon the request of counsel for the Department of Justice and after consultation with counsel for the Monroe City School Board, the parties deadline for notifying the Court of the selection of the Independent Court Monitor is hereby EXTENDED to January 22, 2016. If the parties need extensions on any other deadlines in the Consent Decree [Doc. No. 113], they should ﬁle the appropriate motion. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 1/12/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
118 Joint STATUS REPORT by USA, City of Monroe School Board. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(aty,Gardner, Kelly) Modiﬁed on 1/25/2016 to add ﬁler (Williams, L). (Entered: 01/21/2016)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

19/30

11/2/2017
01/22/2016 01/25/2016 01/26/2016
01/26/2016 01/29/2016
02/02/2016 02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/23/2016

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
119 MOTION Order for Status Conference(s) by School Board City of Monroe. Motions referred to Karen L Hayes. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum / Brief in Support of Motion, # 2 Proposed order for Motion, # 3 Exhibit Certiﬁcate of Service)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
Motions Transferred regarding 119 MOTION Order for Status Conference(s) . Motions referred to Robert G James. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
120 ORDER granting 119 Motion/Request for Status Conference. A status conference is set in this matter on February 1, 2016, at 3:00 p.m. in Chambers. Counsel for the Department of Justice will be permitted to attend the conference by telephone. Counsel for the MCSB and the individual Board members should attend in person. If the individual Plaintiffs in this matter, Benya Marshall and Annie Harris, would like to participate, they should also attend in person. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any Board member may present a list of his or her questions or concerns to MCSBs counsel to be emailed to the Courts courtesy copies address no later than midnight, January 28, 2016. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 1/26/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 01/26/2016)
Set Hearing: District Judge Status Conference set for 2/1/2016 at 3:00 PM in Chambers before Judge Robert G James. See Order 120 . (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 01/26/2016)
121 First MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Intervene with consent sought but not yet obtained Intervention by Greg Jones, Nici Hanks, Neville Alumi & Friends Association. Motions referred to Karen L Hayes. (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Ludley, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Jones, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Hanks, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Willson, # 6 Exhibit Declaration of Haneline, # 7 Exhibit Declaration of Dayton, # 8 Proposed order)(Attorney Patrick Scott Wolleson added to party Greg Jones(pty:mov), Nici Hanks(pty:mov), Neville Alumi & Friends Association(pty:mov))(aty,Wolleson, Patrick) Modiﬁed text on 2/1/2016 (Kennedy, T). (Entered: 01/29/2016)
122 *VACATED* ORDER granting 121 Motion for Leave to Intervene. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 2/2/16. (crt,Crawford, A) Modiﬁed on 2/3/2016 to indicate order was vacated this date(Crawford, A). (Entered: 02/02/2016)
123 ELECTRONIC ORDER VACATING 122 Order on Motion for Leave to Intervene. Motion will be set for brieﬁng. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 2/3/16. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
124 NOTICE of Motion Setting regarding 121 First MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Intervene, with consent sought but not yet obtained. Motions referred to Robert G James. (crt,Crawford, A) (Main Document 124 replaced on 2/3/2016) (Crawford, A). (Entered: 02/03/2016)
NOTICE of Corrective Action regarding 124 Notice of Motion Setting without date. Action taken: Document replaced to show correct caption. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes no longer assigned to case. All motions and proceedings to be held before Judge James. (crt,Dunford, T) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
125 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 121 First MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Intervene with consent sought but not yet obtained Intervention ﬁled by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(aty,Turnage Young, Michaele) (Entered: 02/23/2016)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

20/30

11/2/2017
02/24/2016

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
126 MOTION In Camera Inspection, To Seal, Make Declaration Under Rule of Evidence 502(d) to Protect Legal Privileges and Restrict Acess , MOTION to Seal Document by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum / Brief, # 2 Proposed order, # 3 Exhibit Certiﬁcate of Service)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 02/24/2016)

02/24/2016

127 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 121 First MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Intervene with consent sought but not yet obtained Intervention ﬁled by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit School Board Meeting Minutes (in globo)) (aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 02/24/2016)

03/01/2016

128 ORDER granting 126 Motion In Camera Inspection, Motion to Seal, and Relief to Preserve Legal Privileges. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 3/1/16. (Attachments: # 1 SEALED In Camera Documents) (crt,DickersonSld, D) Modiﬁed on 3/1/2016 to indicate attachment sealed (DickersonSld, D). (Entered: 03/01/2016)

03/02/2016

129 MINUTE ENTRY/ORDER Setting 121 First MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Intervene with consent sought but not yet obtained Intervention : Opposition memoranda have been ﬁled, and the Movers' reply memorandum is due no later than March 9, 2016. A Motion Hearing is set for 4/4/2016 at 10:00 AM in Monroe, 2nd ﬂoor before Judge Robert G James. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 3/2/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 03/02/2016)

03/09/2016

130 REPLY to Response to 121 First MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Intervene with consent sought but not yet obtained Intervention ﬁled by Neville Alumi & Friends Association, Greg Jones, and Nici Hanks. (aty,Wolleson, Patrick) Modiﬁed text to more accurately describe pleading submitted and ﬁlers on 3/11/2016 (Yocum, M). (Entered: 03/09/2016)

03/23/2016

131 Joint MOTION for extension of deadlines by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amended Consent Decree)(aty,Turnage Young, Michaele) Modiﬁed on 3/23/2016 to edit text (Reasor, M). (Entered: 03/23/2016)

03/24/2016 132 ORDER granting 131 Motion for Extension of Deadlines. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 3/24/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 03/24/2016)

03/24/2016

133 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE signed by all parties. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 3/24/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Main Document 133 replaced on 3/24/2016) (DickersonSld, D). (Entered: 03/24/2016)

03/24/2016

NOTICE of Corrective Action regarding 133 Order. Action taken: Document replaced to correct signature line of Judge. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 03/24/2016)

04/04/2016

134 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: MOTION HEARING held on 4/4/2016 re 121 First MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Intervene with consent sought but not yet obtained Intervention ﬁled by Neville Alumi & Friends Association, Nici Hanks, Greg Jones. After testimony, the Court defers ruling on the motion at this time. (Court Reporter: Debbie Lowery) (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 04/04/2016)

04/04/2016 135 COURT'S WITNESS LIST ﬁled (restricted access). (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 04/04/2016)

04/04/2016 136 EXHIBIT LIST by Nici Hanks, Greg Jones, Neville Alumi & Friends Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 04/04/2016)

04/12/2016

137 RULING re 121 First MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Intervene with consent sought but not yet obtained Intervention ﬁled by Neville Alumi & Friends Association, Nici Hanks, Greg Jones. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 4/12/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 04/12/2016)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

21/30

11/2/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

04/12/2016

138 ORDER: For the reasons set forth in this Court's Ruling 137 , IT IS ORDERED that the 121 Motion for Leave to Intervene is DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 4/12/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 04/12/2016)

04/13/2016

139 Joint MOTION for Extension of a Deadline by USA, School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Second Amended Consent Decree)(aty,Turnage Young, Michaele) Modiﬁed ﬁlers on 4/14/2016 (Kennedy, T). (Entered: 04/13/2016)

04/14/2016 140 ORDER granting 139 Motion ﬁle Amended Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 4/14/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 04/14/2016)

04/14/2016 141 SECOND AMENDED CONSENT DECREE signed by all parties. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 4/14/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 04/14/2016)

05/02/2016

142 ELECTRONIC MINUTE ENTRY: A Telephone Conference is SET for 5/18/2016 at 2:00 PM before Judge Robert G James. Chambers will provide counsel with call-in information prior to the conference. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 05/02/2016. (crt,Floyd, J) (Entered: 05/02/2016)

05/18/2016

143 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE held on 5/18/2016. The Court and participants discussed the District's efforts at complying with the consent decree. The Court urged the participants to continue to work towards compliance before the 2016-2017 school year. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 05/18/2016)

06/24/2016

144 MOTION for Order to Show Cause by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum / Brief , # 2 Exhibit FF, # 3 Exhibit HH, # 4 Proposed order)(aty,Turnage Young, Michaele) Modiﬁed docket text on 6/27/2016 (Bunting, M). (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/24/2016

145 PROPOSED SEALED DOCUMENT: Sealed Exhibits to Memorandum in Support of Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why The Monroe City School Board, Its Individual Members, And The Monroe City Schools Superintendent Should Not Be Held In Contempt For Failure To Comply With The December 11, 2015 Consent Decree, As Amended by USA re 144 MOTION for Order to Show Cause. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z, # 27 Exhibit AA, # 28 Exhibit BB, # 29 Exhibit CC, # 30 Exhibit DD, # 31 Exhibit EE, # 32 Exhibit GG)(aty,Turnage Young, Michaele) Modiﬁed on 6/27/2016 (Bunting, M). Modiﬁed to reﬂect proposed sealed document on 7/8/2016 (Bunting, M). (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/24/2016

146 MOTION to Seal Document 145 Sealed Document, by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum / Brief, # 2 Proposed order)(aty,Turnage Young, Michaele) Modiﬁed docket text on 6/27/2016 (Bunting, M). (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/27/2016

147 MINUTE ENTRY: District Judge Telephone Conference set for 6/27/2016 at 1:30 PM before Judge Robert G James. Counsel shall call the Court's conference number at the appointed time. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 6/27/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 06/27/2016)

06/27/2016 148 ORDER granting 146 Motion to Seal Document 145 Sealed Document. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 6/27/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 06/27/2016)

06/27/2016

149 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE held on 6/27/2016. After further discussion, the Court set another telephone status conference for Wednesday, June 29, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. Because the

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

22/30

11/2/2017
06/27/2016
06/29/2016
06/30/2016
06/30/2016 07/05/2016 07/06/2016
07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/25/2016 08/30/2016

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
2016-2017 school year is scheduled to begin August 12, 2016, counsel and the undersigned have serious concerns about resolving the issues raised by the DOJ before students return. Accordingly, the undersigned also set a hearing on the DOJ's motion for July 6, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 06/27/2016)
157 SEALED EXHIBITS to Memorandum In Support of 144 MOTION for Order to Show Cause. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit C, # 3 Exhibit D, # 4 Exhibit E, # 5 Exhibit F, # 6 Exhibit G, # 7 Exhibit H, # 8 Exhibit I, # 9 Exhibit J, # 10 Exhibit K, # 11 Exhibit L, # 12 Exhibit M, # 13 Exhibit N, # 14 Exhibit O, # 15 Exhibit P, # 16 Exhibit Q, # 17 Exhibit R, # 18 Exhibit S, # 19 Exhibit T, # 20 Exhibit U, # 21 Exhibit V, # 22 Exhibit W, # 23 Exhibit X, # 24 Exhibit Y, # 25 Exhibit Z, # 26 Exhibit AA, # 27 Exhibit BB, # 28 Exhibit CC, # 29 Exhibit DD, # 30 Exhibit EE, # 31 Exhibit GG)(crt,Bunting, M) Modiﬁed on 10/6/2016 to correct text.(Crawford, A) (Entered: 07/08/2016)
150 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 6/29/2016. Mr. Lawrence was Ordered to ﬁle his written response no later than 6/30/2016 re 144 MOTION for Order to Show Cause. After further discussion, the Court also ordered the DOJ to notify chambers by Tuesday, July 5, 2016, at noon, whether the motion has been resolved, or, if not, what issues remain for the hearing set for July 6, 2016. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 06/29/2016)
151 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court prepare a subpoena for service on Monroe City School Board employee, Dr. Phedra Brantley, to secure her appearance at the hearing in the above-reference matter on July 6, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Marshals Service serve the subpoena on Ms. Brantley. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 6/30/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
152 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 144 MOTION for Order to Show Cause ﬁled by School Board City of Monroe. (aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
153 STATUS REPORT by USA. (aty,Turnage Young, Michaele) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
154 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: EVIDENTIARY HEARING held on 7/6/2016. The Court continued the Motion 144 Hearing until Tuesday, September 13, 2016, at 9:00 A.M, The Court did hold a status (miscellaneous hearing) this date. Testimony was taken regarding what the Consent Decree provided for teacher assignment and related issues and where the parties stand with reference to compliance of that issue. On 8/19/2016, the Board and Dr. Vidrine will provide a report to the Court and the Department of Justice of the assignment of teachers and administration (including Deans of Students) as of August 15, 2016. This matter will resume on September 13, 2016, at 9:00 A.M. (Court Reporter: Debbie Lowery) (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
155 WITNESS LIST ﬁled (restricted access) by School Board City of Monroe. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
156 EXHIBIT LIST by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A - F)(crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
158 PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN by U S Marshal regarding service upon Dr Phedra Brantley on 7/6/2016. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
159 MINUTE ENTRY: A telephone pre-hearing conference is set in above-referenced matter on September 6, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. The Court will provide call-in information for the conference to counsel, and only counsel will be permitted to participate. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 8/30/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 08/30/2016)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

23/30

11/2/2017
09/06/2016
09/08/2016 09/09/2016
09/15/2016 09/19/2016 09/19/2016
09/19/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
160 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE held on 9/6/2016. Discussion was held on the upcoming September 13, 2016 hearing. Parties agreed that they would have their own conference on Wednesday, September 7, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. to discuss the latest information and documentation. After further discussion, the Court set a ﬁnal telephone pre-hearing conference for 9/8/2016 at 1:30 PM before Judge Robert G James. Only attorneys will participate in this conference. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
161 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 9/8/2016. Discussion was held regarding the upcoming reconvened hearing on the DOJ's contempt motion 144 . After further discussion, the Court re-set the hearing to September 19, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. to allow the School Board additional time to gather and provide the requested information and for DOJ to review the information in Monroe. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
162 MINUTE ENTRY: re 161 Telephone Conference. A Contempt Hearing is set in the above-reference matter for September 19, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. The United States Department of Justice has raised allegations of contempt against Superintendent Brent Vidrine under the authority of the All Writs Act. The Court previously informed Dr. Vidrine that counsel for the Monroe city School board could represent him as well, as long as their positions were not in conﬂict. However, to the extent that Dr. Vidrine and the School board take conﬂicting positions, the Court informed him that he would either have to retain his own counsel or represent himself. It now appears to the Court that Dr. Vidrine may well have a conﬂict. Accordingly, he is instructed to have counsel present or be prepared to represent himself at the hearing. The United States Marshals Service will serve a copy of this minute entry on Dr. Vidrine at the School Board ofﬁce at 206 Tower Drive, Monroe, Louisiana 71201. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 9/8/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
163 ORDER re 162 Minute Entry. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court prepare a subpoena for service on Monroe City School board employee, Dr. Phedra Brantley, to secure her appearance at the hearing in the above-referenced matter on September 19, 2016, at 9:0 a.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Marshals Service serve the subpoena on Ms. Brantly. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 9/15/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
164 ORAL MOTION for Patrick Scott Wolleson to Enroll as Counsel by Brent Vidrine. (Attorney Patrick Scott Wolleson added to party Brent Vidrine(pty:intvd)) (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
165 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: MOTION HEARING held on 9/19/2016 re 144 MOTION for Order to Show Cause ﬁled by USA. After discussion with counsel, the Court continues the motion hearing to Wednesday, October 12, 2016, at 9:00 A.M. Oral Motion for Patrick Scott Wolleson to Enroll as Counsel for Dr. Vidrine 164 . Oral Order granting 164 Motion to Enroll as Counsel. Subpoena issued on behalf of Dr. Phedra Brantley is continuing. (Court Reporter: Debbie Lowery) (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 144 MOTION for Order to Show Cause. Motion day reset for 10/12/2016 at 9:00 AM in Monroe, 2nd ﬂoor before Judge Robert G James. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
166 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Dr. Brent Vidrine through Dr. Phedra Brantly on 9/15/2016 with the Court's Minute Entry dated September 9, 2016 162 . (crt,Bunting, M) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
167 SERVICE RETURN re 163 Order. Dr. Phedra Brantley served thru Rehenah Williams,

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

24/30

11/2/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
Assistant, on 9/15/2016. (crt,Bunting, M) (Entered: 09/26/2016)

10/06/2016 168 MOTION View Sealed Documents by Brent Vidrine. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum / Brief, # 2 Proposed order)(aty,Wolleson, Patrick) (Entered: 10/06/2016)

10/06/2016

169 ORDER granting 168 Motion for Access to Sealed Exhibits. The Clerk of Court is authorized to grant counsel for Dr. Vidrine access to Exhibits A-Z, AA-EE, and GG to 157 Memorandum in Support of 144 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 10/6/16. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 10/06/2016)

10/10/2016 170 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by Brent Vidrine. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum / Brief, # 2 Proposed order)(aty,Wolleson, Patrick) (Entered: 10/10/2016)

10/11/2016

171 NOTICE of Motion Setting regarding 170 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. Motions referred to Robert G James. (crt,Whidden, C) (Entered: 10/11/2016)

10/12/2016

172 STIPULATION by USA, Monroe City School Board and Brent Vidrine. (aty,Turnage Young, Michaele) Modiﬁed on 10/12/2016 to add ﬁlers (FinnSld, P). (Entered: 10/12/2016)

10/12/2016

173 ORAL MOTION for Mary J. Mudrick to Enroll as Local Counsel by USA. (Attorney Mary J Mudrick added to party USA(pty:intvp))(crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 10/12/2016)

10/12/2016 174 ORAL MOTION to Seal Exhibits to be attached to the Stipulation 172 after the hearing ﬁled this date by USA. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 10/12/2016)

10/12/2016 175 ORAL MOTION to Close Courtroom to Public by USA. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 10/13/2016)

10/12/2016

176 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: MOTION HEARING held on 10/12/2016 re 144 Motion to Show Cause and 170 Motion for Judgment on Pleadings. After testimony, the Court took Defendants 170 Motion under advisement. The U.S.A.'s Motion 144 is deferred. The Government moved the Court to close the courtroom to the public prior to the testimony of Dr. Phedra Brantley 175 because Dr. Brantley's testimony was to include personal information of District employees which is subject to privacy protection. The Court so Ordered. The Court granted USA's Motion to Enroll 173 , and granted USA's Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal 174 . After the hearing, the Government is to ﬁle the exhibits under seal into the record as an attachment to the Stipulation 172 . A status conference is set for Friday, October 14, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. (Court Reporter: Debbie Lowery) (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 10/13/2016)

10/12/2016

Set/Reset Hearings: District Judge Telephone Status Conference set for 10/14/2016 at 1:30 PM before Judge Robert G James. The Court will furnish the call-in information to counsel. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 10/13/2016)

10/13/2016

177 MINUTE ENTRY: The Telephone Status Conference is re-set for 10/18/2016 at 1:30 PM before Judge Robert G James. The call-in information will be provided to counsel prior to the conference. Only attorneys are permitted to participate. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 10/13/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 10/13/2016)

10/13/2016

178 SEALED DOCUMENT: Exhibits to Stipulation by USA re 172 Stipulation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20)(aty,Turnage Young, Michaele) (Entered: 10/13/2016)

10/18/2016 179 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: TELEPHONE STATUS

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

25/30

11/2/2017
10/25/2016 10/31/2016 11/01/2016 11/01/2016 11/01/2016 11/04/2016 11/04/2016 11/08/2016 11/14/2016 11/14/2016 11/17/2016 11/18/2016

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
CONFERENCE held on 10/18/2016. The District must ﬁle the rosters, summary pages/threshold reports, declarations of Dr. Vidrine or the principals (or assistant principals, if applicable), and any birth certiﬁcates under seal no later than 10/25/2016. The DOJ will ﬁle its response in writing and under seal, if necessary, to the District's ﬁlings no later than 11/14/2016. Another District Judge Telephone Status Conference is set for 11/17/2016 at 1:30 PM before Judge Robert G James. Only attorneys will participate in this conference. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 10/18/2016)
180 RESPONSE by Brent Vidrine re 179 Status Conference. (Attachments: # 1 Sealed Exhibits)(aty,Wolleson, Patrick) Modiﬁed on 10/25/2016 to correct text(Crawford, A). (Entered: 10/25/2016)
181 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings under FRCvP 12(c) and (d) by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum / Brief for the MCSB, # 2 Proposed order)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 10/31/2016)
182 NOTICE of Motion Setting regarding 181 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings under FRCvP 12(c) and (d). Motions referred to Robert G James. (crt,Bunting, M) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
183 RESPONSE to Motion re 170 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings ﬁled by USA. (aty,Turnage Young, Michaele) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
184 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 170 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings of Dr. Brent Vidrine ﬁled by School Board City of Monroe. (aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
185 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Brent Vidrine for proceedings held on July 6, 2016 before Judge Robert G. James to Court Reporter: Court Reporter Debbie Lowery. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order)(aty,Wolleson, Patrick) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
185 MOTION to Seal Document 185 Transcript Request. ADMINISTRATIVE ENTRY as 185 Motion electronically ﬁled without selecting all reliefs requested in pleading. (crt,Bunting, M) Modiﬁed to add document number on 11/7/2016 (Bunting, M). (Entered: 11/07/2016)
186 ORDER granting 185 Motion to Seal Document. Dr. Vidrine's testimony before this Court on July 6, 2016, is hereby ORDERED to be transcribed, sealed, and made available for review by counsel of record in this matter. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 11/8/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 11/08/2016)
187 MINUTE ENTRY: The telephone status conference currently set for 11/17/16 is hereby CONTINUED and RE-SET to 11/18/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Robert G James. Only attorneys will participate in this conference. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 11/14/16. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
188 SEALED DOCUMENT: Response to School District's October 25, 2016 Document Production by USA re 180 Response (NOT Motions). (aty,Turnage Young, Michaele) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
189 SEALED DOCUMENT: Reply of Superintendent to the United States Response to the Superintendent's October 25, 2016 Document Production by Brent Vidrine re 188 Sealed Document. (aty,Wolleson, Patrick) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
190 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 11/18/2016. Counsel for the School Board and Dr. Vidrine were instructed to have twenty-ﬁve surveys completed by 12/2/16. The DOJ was instructed to provide a list of any deﬁciency to counsel by 12/9/16. A telephone status conference was

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

26/30

11/2/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
set for 12/15/2016 at 3:00 PM before Judge Robert G James. Only attorneys will participate in the conference. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 11/18/2016)

11/22/2016

191 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 181 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings under FRCvP 12(c) and (d) ﬁled by USA. (aty,Turnage Young, Michaele) Modiﬁed docket text to describe document ﬁled on 11/23/2016 (Bunting, M). (Entered: 11/22/2016)

11/22/2016

192 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 10/12/2016 before Judge Robert G. James. Court Reporter/Transcriber Debbie Lowery, Telephone number 318-361-0380. Pages: 129. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER or the Court Reporter.. Redaction Request due 12/16/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/27/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/24/2017. (crt,Lowery, D) (Entered: 11/22/2016)

11/22/2016

193 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT UNDER SEAL of Proceedings ﬁled for Motion Hearing Excerpt of testimony of Phedra Brantley sealed held on 10/12/2016 before Judge Robert G. James. Court Reporter/Transcriber Debbie Lowery, Telephone number 318-361-0380. Pages: 65. (crt,Lowery, D) (Entered: 11/22/2016)

12/08/2016

194 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT UNDER SEAL of Proceedings ﬁled for Evidentiary Hearing (Excerpt) Testimony of Brent Vidrine, Ph.D held on 7/6/2016 before Judge Robert G. James. Court Reporter: Debbie Lowery, Telephone number 318361-0380. Pages: 106. (crt,Lowery, D) (Entered: 12/08/2016)

12/08/2016

195 SEALED MOTION For Further Relief by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum / Brief In Support of The United States' Motion For Further Relief, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Proposed order)(aty,Turnage Young, Michaele) (Entered: 12/08/2016)

12/13/2016

196 ELECTRONIC MINUTE ENTRY: The Telephone Status Conference which was previously set for 12/15/2016 at 3:00 PM is RESET for 12/13/2016 at 3:00 PM before Judge Robert G James. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 12/13/16. (crt,Floyd, J) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016

197 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 12/13/2016. After some discussion, the Court instructed counsel for the DOJ to provide a list of all remaining current deﬁciencies to counsel for the School Board and Dr. Vidrine by December 23, 2016. This list should identify the DOJs speciﬁc concerns, so that the District can take action as soon as possible to resolve the concerns. A copy of the list should be submitted to the undersigned by email to james_courtesycopies@lawd.uscourts.gov. The Board and Dr. Vidrine should submit a response to DOJ with a courtesy copy to the undersigned no later than January 12, 2017, although counsel will strive to provide a response earlier, if at all possible. If the Board and Dr. Vidrine wish to respond to the DOJs request for the appointment of a special master, they should ﬁle memoranda no later than January 12, 2017. The Court set a telephone status conference for January 13, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. (Central). Only attorneys will participate in this conference. (crt,DickersonSld, D) (Entered: 12/14/2016)

12/13/2016

Set Hearings: Telephone Status Conference set for 1/13/2017 at 2:00 PM before Judge Robert G James. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

01/12/2017 198 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 195 SEALED MOTION For Further Relief ﬁled by School Board City of Monroe. (aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 01/12/2017)

01/12/2017

199 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 195 SEALED MOTION For Further Relief ﬁled by Brent Vidrine. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(aty,Wolleson, Patrick) (Entered: 01/12/2017)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

27/30

11/2/2017
01/13/2017
01/19/2017 01/27/2017 01/27/2017 03/22/2017
03/22/2017 03/22/2017
04/28/2017 05/01/2017 09/07/2017
09/12/2017 09/22/2017
09/25/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
200 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert G James: STATUS CONFERENCE held on 1/13/2017. The Court ORDERS the DOJ to ﬁle a proposed order by 1/20/17. The School Board and Vidrine shall ﬁle a response to the proposed order by 1/27/17. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
201 PROPOSED ORDER/JUDGMENT by USA. (aty,Turnage Young, Michaele) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
202 RESPONSE by Brent Vidrine re 201 Proposed Order/Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order)(aty,Wolleson, Patrick) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
203 RESPONSE in Opposition by School Board City of Monroe re 201 Proposed Order/Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Superintendent's Alternate Proposed Order) (aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
204 MEMORANDUM RULING re 144 MOTION for Order to Show Cause ﬁled by USA, 170 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings ﬁled by Brent Vidrine and 181 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings under FRCvP 12(c) and (d) ﬁled by School Board City of Monroe. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 3/22/17. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
205 ORDER denying 144 Motion for Order to Show Cause; denying as moot 170 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ; denying as moot 181 Motion for Relief under FRCvP 12(c) (d). Signed by Judge Robert G James on 3/22/17. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
206 MEMORANDUM ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 195 Motion for Further Relief is DENIED, subject to the right of the United State to re-urge the motion, in full or as appropriately modiﬁed, when the District moves for a ﬁnding of unitary status. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 3/22/17. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
207 MOTION to Withdraw Michaele N. Turnage Young as Attorney by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order)(aty,Turnage Young, Michaele) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
208 ORDER granting 207 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Michaele Nicole Turnage Young terminated as counsel for the United States. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 5/1/2017. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
209 MINUTE ENTRY: A Telephone Status Conference is set for 9/14/2017 at 2:30 PM before Judge Robert G James. The Court will provide call-in information. Only counsel will be permitted to participate. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 9/7/2017. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
210 MINUTE ENTRY: The telephone conference scheduled for 9/14/17 is Continued Without Date. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 9/12/2017. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 09/12/2017)
211 MOTION for Further Relief Regarding Compliance with Second Amended Consent Decree by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum / Brief in Support of Motion for Further Relief, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J)(aty,Gardner, Kelly) Modiﬁed on 9/26/2017 See 214 for corrected exhibits F and G(Crawford, A). (Entered: 09/22/2017)
212 MOTION to Correct Exhibits regarding 211 MOTION for Further Relief Regarding Compliance with Second Amended Consent Decree with consent by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order granting Motion to Correct Exhibits, # 2 Proposed Exhibit F, # 3 Proposed Exhibit G)(aty,Gardner, Kelly) Modiﬁed on 9/25/2017 to edit text. (Putch, A) (Entered: 09/25/2017)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

28/30

11/2/2017
09/26/2017 09/26/2017 09/26/2017 09/26/2017
09/26/2017 09/26/2017
09/28/2017 10/02/2017 10/02/2017
10/02/2017 10/09/2017 10/09/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
213 ORDER granting 212 Motion to Correct Exhibits. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 9/26/2017. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
214 CORRECTED EXHIBIT F re 211 MOTION for Further Relief Regarding Compliance with Second Amended Consent Decree by USA. (Attachments: # 1 CORRECTED Exhibit G)(crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
215 MINUTE ENTRY: setting response deadlines as to 211 MOTION for Further Relief Regarding Compliance with Second Amended Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 9/26/2017. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
216 MOTION for Leave to File, a Motion to Terminate Judicial Supervision and Declare the Monroe City School District Fully Unitary by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Memo/Brief in Support of Motion, # 2 Proposed pleading-Motion to Terminate, # 3 Proposed Pleading-Memorandum in Support of Motion to Terminate, # 4 Proposed Exhibit A to Motion to Terminate Judicial Supervision, # 5 Proposed Exhibit B to Motion to Terminate Judicial Supervision, # 6 Proposed Exhibit C to Motion to Terminate Judicial Supervision, # 7 Proposed order Authorizing Immediate Filing, # 8 Proposed order to Motion to Terminate)(aty,Lawrence, Leo) Modiﬁed modiﬁed event to more accurately describe ﬁling and to reﬂect deﬁcient status on 9/26/2017 (Bunting, M). Modiﬁed to remove deﬁcient status on 9/28/2017 (Bunting, M). (Entered: 09/26/2017)
217 NOTICE of Corrective Action to Leo Douglas Lawrence on behalf of School Board City of Monroe regarding 216 MOTION for Leave to File. Action taken: Modiﬁed event to more accurately describe the pleading submitted. (crt,Bunting, M) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
218 ISSUED IN ERROR - NOTICE of Deﬁciency to Leo Douglas Lawrence on behalf of School Board City of Monroe regarding 216 MOTION for Leave to File. Reason: You do not indicate whether opposing counsel consent to the granting of this ex parte motion. Please refer to LR7.4.1, 7.6, or 7.9 for speciﬁc instructions regarding statements of consent. The motion cannot be referred to chambers until this deﬁciency is corrected. (crt,Bunting, M) Modiﬁed to reﬂect issued in error on 9/28/2017 (Bunting, M). (Entered: 09/26/2017)
219 SEALED DOCUMENT: Proposed Exhibit A June 30, 2017 Report of the Independent Court Monitor, Part I. Overview, ﬁled by School Board City of Monroe re 216 MOTION for Leave to File. (Attachments: # 1 VI. Remedial Measures, # 2 II. Implementation, # 3 Appendix C. Strategic Plan)(crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
220 ORDER granting 216 Motion for Leave to File Motion to Terminate Judicial Supervision and to Declare the Monroe City School District Unitary. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 10/2/2017. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
221 MOTION to Terminate Judicial Supervision and Declare the Monroe City School District Unitary by School Board City of Monroe. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum / Brief, # 2 SEALED Exhibit A - Part I, # 3 SEALED Exhibit A - Part VI, # 4 SEALED Exhibit A Part II, # 5 SEALED Exhibit A - Appendix C, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Exhibit C, # 8 Proposed order)(crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
Set Deadline as to 221 MOTION to Terminate Judicial Supervision and Declare the Monroe City School District Unitary. USA response due 21 days from date of 220 Order. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
222 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 211 MOTION for Further Relief Regarding Compliance with Second Amended Consent Decree ﬁled by School Board City of Monroe. (aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 10/09/2017)
223 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 211 MOTION for Further Relief Regarding

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

29/30

11/2/2017
10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/20/2017 10/24/2017 10/25/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
Compliance with Second Amended Consent Decree ﬁled by Brent Vidrine. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor)(aty,Wolleson, Patrick) (Entered: 10/09/2017)
224 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 221 MOTION to Terminate Judicial Supervision and Declare the Monroe City School District Unitary ﬁled by USA. (aty,Gardner, Kelly) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
225 REPLY to Response to Motion re 221 MOTION to Terminate Judicial Supervision and Declare the Monroe City School District Unitary Reply Memorandum ﬁled by School Board City of Monroe. (aty,Lawrence, Leo) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
226 MINUTE ENTRY setting a Status Conference for 11/14/2017 at 10:00 AM in Monroe, 2nd ﬂoor before Judge Robert G James. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 10/20/2017. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
227 Unopposed MOTION for Teresa Yeh to Enroll as Counsel by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed order)(Attorney Teresa Yeh added to party USA(pty:intvp))(aty,Yeh, Teresa) (Entered: 10/24/2017)
228 ORDER granting 227 Motion to Enroll as Counsel. Teresa Yeh added as additional counsel for USA. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 10/25/2017. (crt,Crawford, A) (Entered: 10/25/2017)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

11/02/2017 21:36:10

PACER Login:

hs0328:2563377:0 Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 26

Cost:

3:65-cv-11297RGJ
2.60

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?141444739728191-L_1_1-1

30/30

 
 Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

513 F.Supp. 375 United States District Court, W. D. Louisiana,
Monroe Division.
Jimmy ANDREWS et al., Plaintiffs, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor,
Ada Blakes et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, v.
CITY OF MONROE et al., Defendants, Lloyd Gill et al., Defendant-Intervenors.
and Jeremiah TAYLOR et al., Plaintiffs,
v. OUACHITA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al.,
Defendants.
Civ. A. Nos. 11297, 12171. | May 19, 1980.
In school desegregation actions involving city and parish school systems, government brought a motion for further relief, seeking intradistrict and interdistrict remedies, and defendant intervenors brought a motion to be relieved from the current desegregation plan operating in the city school system. The District Court, Stagg, J., held that: (1) interdistrict remedy of consolidation was not warranted where government failed to prove that the two systems were intertwined administratively or in student assignment; (2) the reciprocal transfer provisions between the city and parish school systems, which allowed a city student to attend either city or parish schools, had a substantial segregative effect on the two systems; (3) the prior existence of de jure segregation, coupled with the one-race schools in both systems, justified the presumption of an intent to discriminate and established a constitutional violation; and (4) a limited interdistrict violation was established which required the remedy that the two school systems could no longer geographically overlap.
Ordered accordingly.
Judgment affirmed, 648 F.2d 959.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*376 Daniel Jennings, David Birnbaum, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for U. S. A. plaintiffintervenor.
Charles D. Jones, Ben Jones, Jones & Jones, Monroe, La., for Ada Blakes, et al., plaintiffs-intervenors:

Paul Kidd, Monroe, La., for Monroe City School Bd.
James Sparks Jr., Monroe, La., for Lloyd Gill, et al., defendants-intervenors:
Stephen J. Katz, Rankin, Yeldell, Herring & Katz, Bastrop, La., for plaintiffs in 12171.
*377 Robert P. McLeod, David E. Verlander, III, Monroe, La., for Ouachita Parish School Bd.

OPINION

STAGG, District Judge.
These consolidated school desegregation suits are currently before the court on the Government’s motion for further relief, seeking intradistrict and interdistrict remedies and on defendant intervenors’ motion to be relieved from the current desegregation plan operating in the Monroe City School System. In 1979, the student population of the City system was 72.7 per cent black, and student population of the Parish system was 77.5 per cent white.1 At trial, Monroe City conceded, and this court finds that further intradistrict relief is required in the Monroe City system. Accordingly, the motion of defendant-intervenors Lloyd Gill, et al., is GRANTED. After a three-day trial on the merits and several months to consider the post-trial briefs and voluminous exhibits filed in this matter, this court must conclude that the Government has proven the existence of a limited constitutional violation producing a significant segregative effect in another district. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974).

1

See Appendices II and IV attached to this opinion.

The scope of the remedy is determined by the nature and extent of the constitutional violation. Swann v. CharlotteMecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). The limited violation found by this court is the geographic overlap of two traditionally dual school systems. This overlap perpetuates vestiges of the segregated system and must be dissolved. Wright v. Council of the City of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451, 92 S.Ct. 2196, 33 L.Ed.2d 51 (1972) and United States v. Scotland Neck Board of Education, 407 U.S. 484, 92 S.Ct. 2214, 33 L.Ed.2d 75 (1972). Accordingly, the overlapping student attendance zones of the two systems must be
1

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)
abolished. However, the Government’s allegation that the two systems were not separate and independent was totally refuted at trial. Consequently, the interdistrict remedy of consolidation would exceed the scope of the proven constitutional violation, and is DENIED.
In Louisiana, two school systems serving one parish is anomolous and anachronistic; however, they are a political reality that a recent Supreme Court authority allows to stand. See Milliken v. Bradley, supra. A decision to alter the function of these two political entities must be effectuated by a legislative decision, not a judicial one.

II.
Ouachita Parish is located in Northeast Louisiana. The majority of the parish’s population is centered in the Monroe-West Monroe urban area. The parish is divided into four quadrants by natural boundaries: the Ouachita River runs north-south, dividing the parish into east-west sections; Interstate Highway 20 runs east-west, dividing the parish into north-south sections.2

2

Taylor v. Ouachita Parish School Board, 424 F.2d 324

(5th Cir. 1970).

The City of Monroe is located in the approximate geographic center of the parish with the Ouachita River serving as the western boundary of the city. The river separates the City of Monroe from the City of West Monroe.3 The Monroe City School System (hereinafter referred to as “MCSS”) operates its own schools within Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. The Ouachita Parish School System (hereinafter referred to as “OPSS”) serves the entire parish, including the City of Monroe. Consequently, a student residing within the Monroe city limits is physically located in two school systems and their respective attendance zones.4 Before discussing the merits of the case, a *378 brief review of the separate histories of these consolidated desegregation suits will be helpful.

3

See Government Exhibit 43. Hereinafter, the numbered

exhibits shall be referred to in the following manner:

Government exhibits as GX; Ouachita Parish School

Board exhibits as PX; Monroe City School Board

exhibits as CX.

4

CX 17, 18 and 19.

A.
On August 5, 1965, Jimmy Andrews and Tommy Ray Robertson, minor children enrolled in the MCSS, sued through their mothers, Ms. Etta Mae Andrews and Ms. Odell Willis, alleging racial segregation and discrimination in the operation of the Monroe City public schools. Jimmy Andrews v. City of Monroe, Civil Action No. 11,297. The named plaintiffs sought to represent a class composed of all black parents and students domiciled in the City of Monroe. This litigation has had a protracted history which mirrors the major decisions of the Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in school desegregation law.
On September 17, 1965, this court (Dawkins, J.) signed a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from “continuing to operate a compulsory bi-racial school system.” After further district and appellate court action, the court entered a decree containing the “freeze order” which became a focal part of this litigation.5 Later, shortly after signing another decree on February 11, 1970, the court allowed the United States to appear as amicus curiae “with the right to submit pleadings, evidence, arguments and briefs, the right to move for injunctive and other necessary and proper relief, and the right to initiate such further proceedings that may be necessary and appropriate.”

5

The terms of the “freeze order” are discussed infra. It

was entered on August 1, 1969.

On February 24, 1970, the case came on for hearing on defendant School Board’s motion for supplemental relief. This court entered a written decree vacating its previous order of February 11, 1970, and adopting the plan previously submitted by the School Board.6 This neighborhood plan was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as it failed to establish a unitary system. On August 5, 1970, this court entered a decree in accordance with the Fifth Circuit mandate. This decree was later affirmed by the Fifth Circuit.

6

GX 3. Paragraph 3 of this decree stated that:

The previous order of this Court with regard to

2

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

“freezing” students as between the Monroe City School system and the Ouachita Parish School system shall remain in full force and effect. This statement was in reference to the court’s order of August 1, 1969.

After further litigation and an appeal, a consent decree was approved on July 30, 1971.7 This decree allowed a neighborhood school plan and established a Bi-racial Committee. Subsequent activity in this case included an adjudication on June 13, 1973, that defendant School Board was in contempt for failure to adhere to the 1971 consent decree. However, finding mitigating circumstances and that “the Board is not wilfully and deliberately attempting to evade the orders of this court ... nor wilfully attempting to perpetuate a dual school system in the City of Monroe,” this court (Putnam, J.) refused to order sanctions.

7

GX 4.

On July 27, 1973, the defendant School Board moved for further relief under the July 30, 1971 consent decree. After a hearing, a consent judgment was entered on August 16, 1973.8 This decree established attendance zones for all schools and grades within the City system. To desegregate the junior high and high schools, the decree implemented a curious change rule that turned students in certain zones into “Mexican jumping beans”. In some cases, a student would be required to change schools five times between the seventh and twelfth grades.9 This decree specifically incorporated *379 all prior court decrees not inconsistent with its present terms and is in effect today.10

8

GX 2. This decree was amended on August 30, 1973.

Paragraph 10 was added covering extra-curricular

activities at the area high schools.

9

The August 19, 1973 order provided, in part:

A motion for further relief and rule to show cause

having been filed herein by defendant, Monroe

City School Board, seeking to amend the previous

judgments rendered herein, and particularly that

certain Consent Decree rendered by Honorable

Ben C. Dawkins, Jr., on July 30, 1971, and the

parties hereto having jointly submitted to the

Court a proposed Consent Decree, and after

hearing testimony of the school administrators

relative thereto, together with argument of

counsel;

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: (1) The students attending the Monroe City School System shall be assigned to schools as follows ... (c) All seventh grade students domiciled North of the Interstate 20 shall attend Carroll Junior High School, and all seventh grade students domiciled South of the Interstate 20 shall attend Jefferson Junior High School; (d) All eighth grade students domiciled North of the Interstate 20 shall attend Lee Junior High School, and all eighth grade students domiciled South of the Interstate 20 shall attend Jefferson Junior High School; (e) All ninth grade students domiciled North of the Interstate 20 shall attend Neville High School, and all ninth grade students domiciled South of the Interstate 20 shall attend Wossman High School; (f) All tenth grade students domiciled North of the Interstate 20 shall attend Carroll High School, and all tenth grade students domiciled South of the Interstate 20 shall attend Wossman High School; (g) All eleventh and twelfth grade students domiciled North of Louisville Avenue, as extended by the Missouri Pacific Railroad to the Eastern city limits, shall attend Neville High School; all eleventh and twelfth grade students domiciled South of Louisville Avenue as extended by the Missouri Pacific Railroad to the Eastern city limits and North of the Interstate 20 shall attend Carroll High School, and all eleventh and twelfth grade students domiciled South of the Interstate 20 shall attend Wossman High School. The above provisions, in particular, were objected to by the Lloyd Gill intervenors.

10

Paragraph 3 of the August 1, 1969 order established the

“freeze” order. The 1973 decree, in s 8, provided:

The previous decrees rendered herein are hereby

maintained in all respects not inconsistent with

this decree.

GX 2. The consent decree of February 24, 1970

stated, in Paragraph 3:

The previous order of this court with regard to

“freezing” students as between the Monroe City

system and the Ouachita Parish system shall

remain in full force and effect.

GX 3. Paragraph 8 of the August 16, 1973 decree

maintained the terms of all previous decrees not

inconsistent with the current order. Consequently, the

freeze order and its implementation has been carried

forward to the present day.

There was no further activity of any moment in this case until August 3, 1977, when Lloyd Gill and nine other white parents moved to intervene on behalf of their minor children. The intervenors attacked the validity of the 1973
3

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

plan, alleging that it was educationally unsound and causing an exodus of white students from the MCSS. On November 9, 1977, this intervention was allowed, and the matter was scheduled for trial. On May 11, 1978, the United States was allowed to intervene in the case as plaintiff. On June 20, 1978, the court allowed Ada Maria Blakes, through her father Alfred Blakes, as well as other named black parents with children in the MCSS, to intervene as party plaintiffs.
In its response of July 21, 1978, the United States agreed with the Gill intervenors that the current desegregation plan in operation in Monroe City should be reexamined. The Government complained that the plan had resulted in several predominantly black schools. At this time, the Government also played the first card leading to the present litigation: “In addition, apparently contributing toward the racial impaction in the Monroe City Schools, is the large number of Monroe City residents attending schools in Ouachita Parish.” Although this interdistrict attendance was authorized by previous orders of this court, the Government complained that this interdistrict attendance had retarded desegregation in both school systems.
Following the Government’s lead, on August 21, 1978, counsel for the defendant Monroe City School Board played what he doubtless considered the City’s remaining trump card a motion to consolidate this action (11,297) with Taylor v. Ouachita Parish School Board, Civil Action No. 12,171. This action is not surprising. As the figures in Appendix VI clearly show, the MCSS went from 50.5 per cent white in 1965 to 27.3 per cent white in 1978-79. If the City could join with a system that was *380 77.5 per cent white, it could tap the student pool needed to stem this alarming white exodus.11

11

Such strategy is not novel. As Professor Bell stated in

Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-

Convergence Dilemma, 93 Har.L.Rev. 518, 531-32

(1980):

The educational benefits that have resulted from

the mandatory assignment of black and white

children to the same schools are also debatable. If

benefits did exist, they have begun to dissipate as

whites flee in alarming numbers from school

districts ordered to implement mandatory

reassignment plans. In response, civil rights

lawyers sought to include entire metropolitan areas

within mandatory reassignment plans in order to

encompass mainly white suburban school districts

where so many white parents sought sanctuary for

their children.

(Footnotes omitted). At trial, City Superintendent,

Dr. Sidney Seegers, testified that interdistrict relief

would be in the best interest of the Monroe City

School System because of the general decline in white students.
Later, the Government also moved to consolidate the Ouachita Parish desegregation suit with the Monroe City action. The Government sought consolidation or joinder to resolve alleged intradistrict and interdistrict constitutional violations of the Monroe City School Board and the Ouachita Parish School Board. The Government also petitioned the court for a “comprehensive desegregation plan providing both intradistrict and interdistrict relief so as to remove all vestiges of the dual school system in both school systems.” Before discussing the court’s ruling on this motion, the facts of the less litigious Ouachita Parish desegregation suit should be set forth.

B.
On July 22, 1966, black parents with children in the Ouachita Parish public school system filed an action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, seeking injunctive relief against the School Board from operating a compulsory bi-racial school system. Jeremiah Taylor v. Ouachita Parish School Board, Civil Action No. 12,171.12 The course of this desegregation suit has been less tortuous than Andrews v. City of Monroe.

12

The original caption of this suit was Donald Newton, et

al., v. Ouachita Parish School Board, et al. On August

3, 1966, the named plaintiff, Jeremiah Taylor,

intervened. The suit came to bear his name.

As in the Andrews case, this court (Dawkins, J.) held a hearing and entered a decree permanently enjoining defendant from “continuing to operate a compulsory biracial school system in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana.” A desegregation plan was signed on August 3, 1966. As in Andrews, the history of the Ouachita Parish litigation tracks the major changes in the school desegregation law. On August 1, 1969, a new plan was ordered and the “freeze order” granted. After various hearings and appeals, the case was again heard on January 28, 1970, and a decree entered. This decree was slightly modified by the Fifth Circuit on April 13, 1970.13 Upon remand, the decree underwent several rapid modifications: On June 16, 1970, Booker T. Washington school was closed and converted to a vocational technical school14; on June 30, 1970, the zone lines effecting attendance at Richwood
4

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

High School were changed; on July 9, 1970, the grade classifications at Richwood High School and Swartz Elementary School were altered.

13

Taylor v. Ouachita Parish School Board, 424 F.2d 324

(5th Cir. 1970).

14

Students formally attending Booker T. Washington

were assigned to Ouachita Parish Junior High,

Lakeshore Elementary and Jack Hayes.

On August 6, 1971, plaintiff filed a motion seeking further relief. The matter was heard before Judge Edwin F. Hunter Jr. on August 18, 1971. Judge Hunter issued a written opinion appointing a bi-racial committee and deferring any decision on the modification of the June 30 and July 19 consent decrees until a recommendation of the bi-racial committee was submitted. Apparently, the committee later recommended that the status quo be maintained with the exception of the first grade children *381 who originally attended Booker T. Washington.15

15

In this opinion, Judge Hunter stated:

There are four school zones. Zones 2, 3 and 4

comprising approximately three-fourths of the

Parish are clearly unitary in every detail.

Later, he stated:

The Ouachita system, as approved by the Fifth

Circuit, became a unitary system.

It is this court’s opinion, considering Judge Hunter’s

abbreviated supervision of this case, that it was not

his intention to declare the system unitary in the

sense that the court no longer retained jurisdiction

over the matter and in the sense that the system had

attained a color blind status in pupil assignment. The

Fifth Circuit has outlined the orderly procedures

district courts are to follow in entering an order that a

school system is, indeed, unitary. See, e. g., United

States v. State of Texas (San Felipe Del Rio

Consolidated Independent School District), 509 F.2d

192 (5th Cir. 1975); Youngblood v. Board of Public

Instruction of Bay County, Florida, 448 F.2d 770

(5th Cir. 1971); Steele v. Board of Public Instruction

of Leon County, Florida, 448 F.2d 767 (5th Cir.

1971). If it was Judge Hunter’s intention to declare

the Ouachita Parish system unitary, alleviating any

further need for judicial intervention, this court sets

this finding aside considering the number of one-race

schools in the system and the posture of the present

litigation.

There was no further action in this matter until additional party plaintiffs were joined in July of 1978. On August

15, 1978, the School Board moved for approval of new school construction. A hearing was held on August 22, 1978. The matter was taken under advisement, pending resolution of the government’s motion for interdistrict relief in the present litigation.16

16

The court will issue a ruling on the Parish’s request for

approval of school construction sites in a ruling

separate from this opinion.

C.
Pursuant to the Government’s motion of November 16 to consolidate, as amended on January 2, 1979, this court ruled that Taylor v. Ouachita Parish School Board and Andrews v. City of Monroe be consolidated for “the limited purpose of the trial of the United States’ motion for intra and interdistrict relief.” The court declined to join the Ouachita Parish School Board as a party to the Andrews suit or to formally consolidate the two actions. On June 5, 1979, this court issued a ruling, pursuant to Rule 611(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, setting forth the order of procedure at trial. The court ruled that the trial would concern the allegations in the Government’s Motion for Further Relief that the City and Parish authorities were guilty of constitutional violations, having an interdistrict effect. Further, the court would hear evidence that the present Monroe City desegregation plan was unacceptable and had failed to remove all vestiges of the dual systems. Finally, the Lloyd Gill intervenors would be allowed to present evidence supporting their Motion for Further Relief. In footnote 2, the court ruled, “The propriety of intradistrict relief within the Ouachita Parish School System is not before the court.” In addition to ruling on the presentation of evidence by the six separate parties to this lawsuit, the court also bifurcated the trial and stated: “If the United States establishes the existence of constitutional violations, the appropriate remedy will be determined through subsequent proceedings.” On July 9, 10 and 11, 1979, evidence on all issues was presented.
III.
From the trial of this matter, the court finds the following facts established by a preponderance of the evidence:
(1) Until 1957, the state law required that Louisiana
5

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

public schools be operated on a segregated basis. La.Const. art. 12 s 1 (1932); La.R.S. 17:331-334, derived from Acts 1954 no. 555 ss 1-4 (repealed 1957). Consequently, even after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955), Louisiana law required the segregation by race of its public school systems.
(2) At the time the original complaints were filed in the respective school desegregation suits August 1965 in Andrews v. City of Monroe and July 1966 in Taylor v. Ouachita Parish School Board the local school authorities operated a dual school *382 system with separate schools for black children and separate schools for white children.
(3) In 1977-78, 9,184 students attended Monroe City schools; 6,212 students were black 67.6 per cent.17 Monroe had four schools that were 90 per cent or more one race: Berg Jones, Carver, Clark and Lincoln. In 197879, 9,168 students attended Monroe schools; 6,667, or 72.7 per cent, were black.18 The Monroe City system has 18 schools, six of which were originally built for black students and 12 for white students.19

17

See Appendix I. The total number of students in the

Monroe system varies with the Government exhibit

used. However, this court will use the figures in GX 48.

18

See Appendix II.

19

See Appendix V.

(4) In 1977-78, there were 18,754 students enrolled in the Parish system; of these students, 14,610, or 77.9 per cent, were white and 4,144, or 21 per cent, were black.20 Ouachita Parish has 16 schools which are over 90 per cent or greater one race. In 1978-79, there were 18,730 students enrolled in the Parish system; 14,517 (77.5 per cent) were white and 4,313 (22.5 per cent) were black.21 Currently, Ouachita Parish’s school system has 32 schools, 26 of which were originally built for white students and 6 of which were originally built for black students.22 Accordingly, it is clear from the facts and statistics introduced into evidence at trial that both the Monroe City School System and the Ouachita Parish School System are composed of predominantly one-race schools. Neither system has completely fulfilled its duty to remove all vestiges of the dual school system.

20

See Appendix III.

21

See Appendix IV.

22

See Appendix V.

(5) Pursuant to La.Const. art. 8 s 10 (1974), two separate and politically autonomous public school systems are allowed to exist in Ouachita Parish.23 Monroe City School Board serves the City of Monroe and its boundaries are co-terminus with the corporate limits of the City.24 The Ouachita Parish School Board serves the entire parish of Ouachita, including the urban areas of Monroe and West Monroe.25

23

La.Const. art. 8, s 10, provides:

(A) Recognition. Parish and city school board

systems in existence on the effective date of this

constitution are recognized, subject to control and

supervision by the State Board of Elementary and

Secondary Education and the power of the

legislature to enact laws affecting them.

(B) Ouachita Parish and Monroe City School

Systems; Board Membership. Only persons

residing within the jurisdiction of the Monroe City

School Board shall be eligible to vote for or be

members of the Monroe City School Board. Only

persons residing in that portion of Ouachita Parish

outside the jurisdiction of the Monroe City School

Board shall be eligible to vote for or be members

of the Ouachita Parish School Board. The position

of a member of either board shall be vacated when

he no longer satisfies the requirements of this

Paragraph. Notwithstanding any contrary

provision of this constitution, this Paragraph shall

become operative upon the election of members to

the Ouachita Parish School Board taking office in

1977 or upon the first reapportionment affecting

the Ouachita Parish School Board, whichever

occurs earlier.

(C) Consolidation. Subject to approval by a

majority of the electors voting, in each system

affected, in an election held for that purpose, any

two or more school systems may be consolidated

as provided by law.

See Armour v. Nix, Civil Action No. 16,708

(N.D.Ga., filed March 1978) at n. 2, aff’d, 446 U.S.

931, 100 S.Ct. 2146, 64 L.Ed.2d 784 (1980). In

Armour, Georgia had a state constitutional provision

similar to the Louisiana provision.

6

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

24

GX 20 and 43.

25

GX 44-46; CX 14-16.

(6) The two systems have existed since at least 1920, and no party contends that the separate school systems were established for the purpose of racial segregation.26 Nor does any party claim that the boundaries between the two systems have been drawn with a racial animus or that the two separate *383 systems have been maintained to perpetuate racial segregation.27

26

PX 6, Interrogatory No. 22.

27

PX 6, Interrogatories No. 23-24.

(7) MCSS and the OPSB are completely separate and autonomous. They have separate school boards and separate officials. They have no joint activities and no liaison office between the two systems. Except for a parish-wide sales tax shared by both systems, there exists no interlocking fiscal policy.28

28

GX 69, Interrogatories No. 10, 17 and 18; see also

Interrogatories No. 11, 18, 19 propounded by the

United States to the City of Monroe. This fact was also

substantiated by the trial testimony of the City

Superintendent, Dr. Sidney Seegers.

GX 7, the Minutes of the City School Board meeting

of September 18, 1973, does contain a reference to a

motion by the City School Board to contact the

Parish superintendent about the possibility of

forming a joint committee to handle student

transfers. No evidence in the record indicates that

this motion was ever acted upon.

(8) Before 1960, students were allowed to switch between the City and Parish systems at any time. After 1960, the change in systems could occur only at the beginning of a semester. This was later modified to allow a switch only at the beginning of each school year.29 The court does not consider the effects of this option prior to the freeze order to be consequential, as both systems operate under a freedom of choice plan. No white student had to change schools to attend the school of his race. Whether this early switching would have had an effect on the residential patterns is doubtful, as both systems had a large

population of white students. Regardless, the court did not hear evidence on this point.30 Finally, Dr. Seegers testified at trial that few students changed systems during this period.

29

Trial testimony of Dr. Sidney Seegers.

30

The testimony of Ms. Pearce, the government’s expert

on this issue, was not allowed into evidence. See

discussion infra.

(9) On August 1, 1969, this court (Dawkins, J.) entered a decree in each of these consolidated desegregation suits. The decrees contained the following common language:
The City of Monroe School Board and the Ouachita Parish School Board both operate schools within the city limits of Monroe, Louisiana. The pupils who have attended the Ouachita Parish School System (Monroe City School System) are “frozen” or must continue in the Parish (City) system during the year 1969-70 in a suitable grade. Once a new student has chosen to attend a school in a system, he may not change to another school in the City (Parish) system, unless he comes into for the first time, or moves into another area within (outside) the city limits. Any unforseen conflicts of a pupil’s attendance may be resolved by the superintendents of the two systems and failing this can be submitted to the Court for decision.
Sixth, this Court retains jurisdiction in this entire matter, including the “freeze” question mentioned hereinabove, and will issue orders and decrees as necessary; all prior orders concerning the filing of periodic reports by the School Board to the Court are continued in effect.
The text of this order entered in the Parish suit is almost identical to the language of the order entered in the City suit, with the bracketed language indicating the change in the underlined words.
The terms of this “freeze” order have been carried forward to the present day without change.31 On its face, the “freeze” order and its concomitant option operate in a racially neutral manner. It is the implementation of this order by the respective School Boards that the Government alleges has caused interdistrict attendance patterns triggering interdistrict relief.32

31

See footnote 10, supra.

7

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

32

See the Government’s motion of November 16, 1978,

seeking consolidation of the cases or, in the alternative,

joinder of parties and motions for intradistrict and

interdistrict relief. See also PX 6, Interrogatory No. 4.

*384 (10) In both systems, primary enforcers of this freeze order are the individual school principals. If the principal suspects a violation, he would contact the Child Welfare and Attendance Office.33 Although there were minor variations in the interpretation of this freeze order as recounted by the principals and Child Welfare and Attendance officers, the option aspect of this order seemed to work as follows: A student could choose either system upon his initial entry into the Parish school systems. At that point, he would be “frozen” and attend the school in the chosen system serving his zone of residence. A person thus was free to choose the school system, but not the school. The student could then change school systems only after a bona fide change of residence which placed him physically across the geographic boundaries of the other system. For example, a City resident who opted to attend City schools could switch to the Parish system only if he moved out of the city limits into the Parish. Likewise, a Parish resident who opted to attend the Parish school in his neighborhood could switch to a City school only by a move to a residence inside the city limits of the City of Monroe.34

33

Trial testimony of City Superintendent, Dr. Sidney

Seegers; past Parish Superintendent, James O.

Lancaster; and present Parish Superintendent, S. T.

Howell.

34

As an exception to this freeze order and its

accompanying attendance zones, both systems allowed

majority to minority transfers. Special education

students did not have attendance zones. Singleton v.

Jackson Municipal Separate School Districts, 419 F.2d

1211 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied 396 U.S. 1032, 90

S.Ct. 612, 24 L.Ed.2d 530 (1971). Swann v. Charlotte-

Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 26, 91

S.Ct. 1267, 1281, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971).

(11) There were no written guidelines regarding enforcement of the 1969 freeze order; however, at the beginning of each school year and at monthly administrative meetings, the superintendent of each system instructed his principals on the order’s

interpretation and enforcement.35

35

Trial testimony of Dr. Sidney Seegers and S. T.

Howell.

In OPSS, at the beginning of each school year, any student enrolling in the school for the first time, who was not a first grade student or a student from a feeder school, needed an affidavit showing change of residence. In the early 1970’s, this affidavit had to be notarized, but this requirement was dropped in 1975 as superfluous.36 This address would be placed on a student’s enrollment card, and the principal would check the address to be sure the residence was within the proper zone and the proper system. Any suspicious addresses, as well as any problems in this area, would be referred to the Child Welfare and Attendance officer. The City used registration cards.37 The principal was responsible for the validity of addresses and problems were referred to the supervisor of Child Welfare and Attendance.38

36

Compare GX 40 with GX 41.

37

GX 33.

38

Trial testimony of Terry Hager, City Child Welfare and

Attendance Supervisor.

(12) The Child Welfare and Attendance officer was a resource person, called upon to verify whether a student was legally enrolled in a system. In Ouachita Parish, the office also monitored the system as a whole to see that the principals were properly instructed in the mechanics of the freeze order.39 Mr. Terry Hager had been the Child Welfare and Attendance Supervisor in the Monroe City system for 18 years. He unequivocally testified that the Monroe system did enforce the freeze order. He also stated that he was never told by his superintendent to give the order a liberal interpretation.

39

Trial testimony of Bobby Wilson. See also trial

testimony of Odean Jones, Principal of Lakeshore

Elementary; James McKay, Principal of Logtown; and

K. L. Lindsay, Principal of Shady Grove Elementary.

Bobby Wilson and James Harris were the Child Welfare and Attendance officers for Ouachita Parish School Board
8

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

Mr. Wilson for 11 years, Mr. Harris for 8 years. Both testified that the freeze order was rigidly *385 enforced by OPSB, and that the students were, in fact, caught attempting to enter the system illegally.
(13) To verify addresses, both principals and Child Welfare and Attendance supervisors would check maps, utility bill addresses, and the phone book to determine a student’s bona fide residence. Testimony received from the various principals of the OPSS conclusively establishes that the freeze order was uniformly and rigidly enforced without regard to a student’s race. For example, Mr. N. F. Zametto, principal of Ouachita Parish High School, would send all new students coming from the City to the Office of Child Welfare and Attendance for approval before admitting the students to his Parish school.
(14) At trial, an attempt was made to prove that Mr. Wilson was removed from his position with the Child Welfare and Attendance Office because his strict enforcement of the freeze order had angered white parents. While it is true that Mr. Wilson spent two and one-half years in the Parish’s physical education and drug abuse programs, there was absolutely no evidence proving that the basis of this change was the complaints of white parents. The testimony of Mr. Lancaster, former superintendent of Ouachita Parish School System and the testimony of Mr. Wilson himself, demolished the Government’s innuendo. Because Mr. Wilson had a degree in physical education and training in drug enforcement, he was transferred into that area. Further, Mr. Wilson was later moved back into the Child Welfare and Attendance Office.
The Government’s attempt to prove that the freeze order was selectively enforced by officials of the two school districts is refuted by the evidence. Next, the Government attempted to show that many students were actually jumping the district lines and escaping the established safeguards designed to keep students in the proper school system.

students who attended Parish schools in 1977-78 but had formerly attended a City school. The Government further alleges that these students still (at the time of trial) had City addresses and should therefore be enrolled in a City school. The first attempt to introduce this exhibit at trial was unsuccessful, as the Parish’s cross-examination showed the exhibit fraught with errors. Many “C’s” actually lived outside the City limits. Further, some listings did not show the date of entry into the system which could possibly have predated the freeze order. Finally, the list included Special Education students who were not covered by the freeze order. With 11 errors, the exhibit was not received into evidence.

The next day, Mr. Terry Hager, MCSS Child Welfare and Attendance Office supervisor, who had originally placed the “C’s” on Exhibit 42, was recalled and attempted to correct the exhibit. Although the Parish still objects to the accuracy of Exhibit 42, this court accepts that 93 City students, black and white, are improperly attending Parish schools. However, these students represent less than onethird of 1 per cent of the combined enrollment of the two systems.40 Further, the Government did not prove that any district jumping was tied to an intentional discriminatory act by any school official.

40

The combined enrollment of the Monroe City School

System and the Ouachita Parish School System in 1977

through 1978 was 22,938 students. See Appendices I

and III.

(16) Finally, in its most persuasive argument, the Government attempted to show that the overlapping attendance zones between the two systems, with the accompanying inter-district attendance, had a substantial segregative effect on both systems, particularly MCSS.
The total number of City residents attending Parish schools since 1969 cannot be computed. However, Parish Exhibit No. 2 shows the following:

(15) Government Exhibit No. 42 is a listing of the total number of City students allegedly attending Parish school

	  

systems improperly. The listing denotes with a “C” those

CITY	  RESIDENTS	  ATTENDING	  PARISH	  SCHOOLS	  *	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

9

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

	   Year	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  	   	   1968	  69	   	  	   	   1969	  70	   	  	   	   1975	  76	   	  	   	   1977	  78	   	  	   	   1978	  79	   	  	   	   	  	   	  

Black	   	  	   	  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
1,814	   	  	   	  
1,219	   	  	   	  
1,055	   	  	   	  
1,093	   	  	   	  
1,080	   	  	   	   	  

White	   	  	   	  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
1,344	   	  	   	  
1,540	   	  	   	  
1,330	   	  	   	  
1,250	   	  	   	  
1,084	   	  	   	   	  

Total	   	  	   	  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
3,158	   	  	   	  
2,759	   	  	   	  
2,385	   	  	   	  
2,343	   	  	   	  
2,164	   	  	   	   	  

* Data not available for school years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1976-77.
*386 In 1977-78, the year the Government’s motion was filed, there were 2,343 students residing within the City limits, attending Parish schools. Of this number, 1,250
School	   	  	   	  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	  
	  	   	   Jack	  Hayes	   	  	  

were white and 1,093 were black. The 1,250 white students attended the following Parish schools:
	  
Whites	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
51	   	  	  
10

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)
	   Ouachita	  Parish	  High	   	  	   	   Ouachita	  Parish	  Elementary-­‐	   	  	   	   Junior	  High	   	  	   	   Robinson	  *	   	  	  
	  
	  	   	   Government	  Exhibit	  GX-­‐18.	   	  	   	   	  	   	  

	   303	   	  	   	   	  
862	   	  	   	  
28	   	  	   	  
	  
	  
	  

* In 1977-78, Robinson was 92.8 per cent black.

Virtually all these white students attended Parish schools in which their race was in the majority.41 Likewise, 686 of the 1,093 black children (62 per cent) attended schools in which their race was in the majority: Richwood, Robinson and Swayze. The remainder attended white Parish schools.42

41

See Appendix III for the racial breakdown of Parish

schools in 1977-78.

42
1977-78 Racial Breakdown of City
Students Attending Parish Schools

School ------

Whites Blacks Total ------ ------ -----

Jack Hayes

57 9

66

Lakeshore Ouachita Parish High School Ouachita ElementaryJr. Hg. Richwood Robinson Swayze
Total GX 18

- 20

20

303 86 389

862 292 1154 - 266 266
28 147 175 - 273 273
---- ---- ----
1250 1093 2343

In 1977-78, 317 Parish students attended Monroe City schools: 241 black students and 76 white students.43 Again, the majority of these students (84 per cent) attended schools where their race was in the majority.44 Government Exhibit 52, Column C shows the school
11

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

attendance of these students to be as follows:

43

GX 52, Column C.

44

Compare GX 48 with GX 52.

School

Black White Total

------

----- ----- -----

Burkdull Faulk Berg Jones Carver Clara Hall Georgia Tucker Levington Lida Benton Lincoln Minnie Ruffin Sallie Humble Sherrouse Carroll Junior High Jefferson Carroll High Neville High Wossman High

0

2

2

77 0

77

12 0

12

2

1

3

0

8

8

0

5

5

3

7

10

6

0

6

26 10

36

2

8

10

3

4

7

11 3

14

2

0

2

10 0

10

6

10

16

38 12

50

--- ---

---

Total:

241 76

317

To determine the segregative effect of these overlapping attendance zones, both parties prepared reconstruction exhibits, reflecting what the racial composition of each school would be absent the overlap.45 These reconstructions vary slightly among the different projections. However, adding 1,250 white students to the northeastern section of the MCSS while removing only 76

white students would definitely have a significant beneficial effect to the racial balance of the MCSS. If the two systems were completely separate, all students living within the Monroe city limits would attend a City school. Under the present attendance zones, the new complexion of each Monroe City school as it would exist if the two systems were separated, appears in Column 4 of Government Exhibit 52. (Compare Government Exhibit 52 with the deviations shown in Parish Exhibit 7.)

45

GX 50-53; PX 4, 7 and 8.

Similarly, the new composition of the Parish schools would exist as appear in Column *387 4 of Government Exhibit 53. For the most part, the changes would make black schools blacker and white schools whiter. According to Government Exhibit 52, the City schools would undergo the change in student population shown in Appendix VIII, Columns I and II. The 1978-79 reconstruction from Parish Exhibit 4 is included as Column III in this appendix. As the Appendix indicates, Minnie Ruffin, Berg Jones and Clara Hall would have substantial changes in student population, but only the first two schools would undergo changes in their racial balance. The City junior high and high schools would also experience a notable gain of white students.
The segregative effect of this interdistrict overlap is highlighted by the fact that the City’s attendance zones will soon experience substantial revision via a new desegregation plan. The purpose of the plan will be twofold: to remove all vestiges of a dual system, and to bring white students back into the MCSS because of the improved educational components incorporated into the decree. If the overlap is maintained, any attempted plan to further desegregate the MCSS will be futile. A white or a black student assigned to a City school where his race is in the minority would simply opt to attend the Parish school where his race is in the majority. Although this would not be possible in every attendance zone, the present residential patterns of the City coupled with the overlapping Parish attendance zones, shown by City Exhibits No. 17, 18 and 19, clearly indicate that in the majority of cases, a City student would be able to attend a Parish school where his race is in the majority.46 Clearly, there is a substantial segregative effect caused by the overlapping student attendance zones between the Parish and the City system.

46

The following Parish elementary schools have zones

which overlap Monroe city: Logtown (white) (small

overlap); Robinson (black); Swayze (black); Ouachita

12

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

Parish Elementary (white); Jack Hayes (white) (small overlap); Lakeshore (white) (small overlap). See trial testimony of Superintendent Howell, GX 44 and CX 16.
The following Parish junior high schools have zones which overlap Monroe city: Richwood (black); Logtown (white) (small overlap); Ouachita Parish Junior High (white). See GX 45, CX 14. The following Parish high schools have zones which overlap Monroe city: Richwood (black) and Ouachita Parish High School (white). See GX 45, CX 15. Only Ouachita Parish Junior Elementary-Junior High and Ouachita Parish High School are physically located within the city limits of Monroe. See trial testimony of Superintendent Howell, GX 43 and 45.

(17) In a final attempt to demonstrate an unlawful intent on the part of Parish school officials, the Government argued that all white Logtown Elementary-Junior High School feeds into all black Richwood High School, yet no white student has ever attended Richwood. The Government contended that the students were allowed to attend all white Ouachita Parish High School. At trial, Mr. James McKay, principal at Logtown, testified that he had 601 students, 556 white and 45 black. Approximately 32 students graduate each year. 32 per cent of these students will move, 26 per cent will simply drop out of the school system altogether and 2 per cent will go to private schools. The remaining 40 per cent are children of teachers, blacks who go to Richwood or to Ouachita Parish High School under the majority to minority transfer rule, and a small zone containing 8 students who feed into Ouachita Parish High School by court order. This testimony was corroborated by Mr. Wilson, the Child Welfare and Attendance supervisor. The Government and City failed to prove that white students are improperly allowed to attend Ouachita Parish High School.47

47

As pointed out by the Parish, this argument would be

relevant to intradistrict violations in the OPSS, but is

not germane to the present litigation.

The record is simply devoid of any direct evidence impugning a segregative intent to Ouachita Parish school authorities. Only a segregative effect has been shown. However, in one-race school systems, this intent may sometimes be inferred.

III.

[1] The shibboleth of any school case is that “(a)s with any equity case, the nature *388 of the violation determines the scope of the remedy.” Swann v. CharlotteMecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 16, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 1276, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). A constitutional violation is a necessary predicate before any remedy, intradistrict or interdistrict, can be ordered by the district court. Further, the scope of this remedy must be commensurate with the constitutional violations sought to be repaired. Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 99 S.Ct. 2941, 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979); Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U.S. 284, 96 S.Ct. 1538, 47 L.Ed.2d 792 (1976); Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974); Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, 413 U.S. 189, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973).
[2] To trigger the equitable powers of this court allowing interdistrict relief, the Government must prove the existence of a constitutional violation in one district having a substantial segregative effect in another. Milliken v. Bradley, supra. As the Chief Justice stated in Milliken:
Before the boundaries of separate and autonomous school districts may be set aside by consolidating the separate units for remedial purpose or by imposing a crossdistrict remedy it must first be shown that there has been a constitutional violation within one district that produces a significant segregative effect in another district. Specifically, it must be shown that racially discriminatory acts of the state or local school districts, or of a single school district have been a substantial cause of interdistrict segregation. Thus an interdistrict remedy might be in order where the racially discriminatory acts of one or more school districts caused racial segregation in an adjacent district, or where district lines have been deliberately drawn on the basis of race. In such circumstances an interdistrict remedy would be appropriate to eliminate the interdistrict segregation directly caused by the constitutional violation. Conversely, without an interdistrict violation and
13

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)
interdistrict effect, there is no constitutional wrong calling for an interdistrict remedy. 418 U.S. 744-45, 94 S.Ct. 3127.

A.
[3] Since Milliken, there have been several cases in which a court ordered interdistrict relief. See, e. g., Morrilton School District No. 32 v. United States, 606 F.2d 222 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1071, 100 S.Ct. 1015, 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980); United States v. Missouri, 515 F.2d 1365 (8th Cir.) (en banc ), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 951, 96 S.Ct. 374, 46 L.Ed.2d 288 (1975); Newburg Area Council, Inc. v. Board of Education, Louisville, Kentucky, 510 F.2d 1358 (6th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 931, 95 S.Ct. 1658, 44 L.Ed.2d 88 (1975); Berry v. School District of City of Benton Harbor, 467 F.Supp. 721 (W.D.Mich.1978); United States v. Board of School Commissioners, 456 F.Supp. 183 (S.D.Ind.1978); Evans v. Buchanan, 393 F.Supp. 428 (D.Del.), aff’d mem. 423 U.S. 963, 96 S.Ct. 381, 46 L.Ed.2d 293 (1975). See also Comment, Interdistrict Remedies for Segregated Schools, 79 Colum.L.Rev. 1168 (1979), and Tasby v. Estes, 572 F.2d 1010 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. granted, 440 U.S. 906, 99 S.Ct. 1212, 59 L.Ed.2d 454 (1979). Even before the Milliken decision, courts had ordered the consolidation of school districts to provide an adequate remedy to correct proven intentional segregative acts by local school officials which had an identifiable interdistrict effect. See, e. g., Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. 1970) and United States v. State of Texas, 321 F.Supp. 1043 (E.D.Tex.1970), aff’d 447 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied sub nom. Edgar v. United States, 404 U.S. 1016, 92 S.Ct. 675, 30 L.Ed.2d 663 (1972).48

48

Recently, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed an

unreported decision of a three-judge court in Atlanta,

Georgia. The three-judge court had denied interdistrict

relief in a massive desegregation suit involving six

county boards of education and four city boards.

Armour v. Nix, Civil Action No. 16,708 (N.D.Ga. filed

March 1978), aff’d, (May 12, 1980). Considering that

most of the school systems involved were unitary, or

were not shown to be guilty of equal protection

violations, the court found no “significant violation of

recent vintage.” Armour at 26. No interdistrict relief

was ordered.

Although the decision is not controlling in a case

such as the present one involving two non-unitary

systems with overlapping student attendance zones,

it does lend support to the granting of limited relief in this case. In Armour, as in this case, there was no showing of an intentional constitutional violation requiring the consolidation of independent school systems.
*389 However, in each of these cases, the court found that the separate school districts were either historic tools of the dual school system and established for the purpose of creating and maintaining a segregated system, or that the school districts were not separate and autonomous but interchanging students with an eye to their race. Such cases have little application to the case under consideration. The Government failed to prove that the two systems were intertwined administratively or in student assignment. As the Government admits, neither district was created, nor its lines drawn with a discriminatory motive. The boundaries of the Monroe system are co-terminus with the city’s corporate limits and have expanded with the city’s growth to encompass what was at one time two outlying parish schools. As in Milliken, this court is faced with “independent school districts historically administered as separate units....” 418 U.S. at 743, 94 S.Ct. at 3126.
Further, the proof conclusively established that the only interdistrict student attendance was that allowed by a 1969 court order, the terms of which were neutrally applied by both school systems. A total of 93 students were proven to be attending Parish schools illegally. Such a small number of students is de minimis and certainly not the result of an intentional act by the Ouachita Parish School officials. As stated in Evans v. Buchanan, 416 F.Supp. 328, 339 (D.Del.1976):
The mere fact that an inter-district violation occurred does not necessarily require an inter-district remedy. It is too longstanding a rule of equity to require a citation that although equity will give complete relief, it will limit the exercise of its power to a remedy which is reasonably necessary and likely to succeed. Moreover, an inter-district violation having only de minimis effects will not require school desegregation across district lines.
The present situation is also distinct from a case involving interdistrict transfers between two or more school districts which have separate geographical areas and district lines
14

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

which do not physically overlap. Consequently, this is not a strict interdistrict transfer case triggering a Singleton violation.49 See, e. g., Lee v. Eufaula City Board of Education, 573 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1978). In Lee, the court held that the cumulative effect on desegregation or reinforcing the existence of a dual school system must be measured on a school-by-school basis when interdistrict transfers were involved. Although factually very close to the present case, the Lee court spoke in terms of Singleton and “nonresident” transfers. The school districts involved in the Lee case were separate geographic divisions with no apparent overlap.

49

Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School

District, supra.

[4] Each student in the Monroe city limits is a resident of two school districts OPSS and MCSS. Although the analysis in Lee is not directly relevant to a resolution of this case, this court has attempted to examine the cumulative effect of this overlap on each school in the Monroe city system. This examination has been on both the quantitative and qualitative level. By examining the reconstruction exhibits, it is apparent that a cumulative segregative effect occurs in the MCSS as a result of the overlap in attendance zones between the City system and the Parish system.50

50

On the other hand, the 317 City students attending

Parish schools are such a miniscule portion of the entire

Parish student population that the effect is

quantitatively nonexistent. However, considering that

these transfers take place in a rather small geographic

area the eastern fringes of the City it is apparent that

they have a segregative effect on the Parish system

immediately surrounding the MCSS.

*390 If Parish Students are allowed to attend City schools, the identical effect sought to be avoided in the City system will occur a student will be able to escape any Parish desegregation plan by opting out of the Parish system and attending the City system where his race may be in the majority. Accordingly, it is the opinion of this court that the reciprocal transfer provisions between the City and the Parish and the Parish and the City have a substantial segregative effect on the two systems.

B. [5] To establish an equal protection violation in a school

desegregation case, plaintiff must show an improper motive that is, that the school officials intended to segregate the two races. The Government must prove not only that the segregated schools exist, but it must also establish that the dual system was brought about or maintained by intentional state action. Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 99 S.Ct. 2941, 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979); Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973).51 The Government was unsuccessful in establishing direct proof that the actions by school authorities were tied to a segregative motive. Indeed, in Interrogatory No. 9 of Parish Exhibit 6, the government stated that:

51

The cases establishing intent as a prerequisite for

proving a constitutional violation are legion:

Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48

L.Ed.2d 597 (1976); Village of Arlington Heights v.

Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S.

252, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977); Personnel

Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S.

256, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979); United

States v. Texas Education Agency (Austin Independent

School District), 564 F.2d 162 (5th Cir. 1977), cert.

denied, 433 U.S. 915, 99 S.Ct. 3106, 61 L.Ed.2d 879

(1979).

The United States case, to date, does not rely on intent to discriminate by the Parish with respect to administration of the existing desegregation plan. Further, in Interrogatory No. 17, the Government stated that no racial animus in the interdistrict transfers is alleged just substantial segregative effect. Of course, Milliken forbids an interdistrict remedy absent the finding of a constitutional violation which would be lacking in the present case if intent is not proven. However, this intent may also be inferred and proven by circumstantial evidence. Where a racially discriminatory school system has been found to exist, Brown II imposes a duty on local school boards to “effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system”. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294, 301, 75 S.Ct. 753, 756, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955). School boards were charged with an affirmative duty to take whatever steps may be necessary to convert a dual system into a unitary system in which racial discrimination could be eliminated “root and branch”. Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 437-38, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968). Since 1955, the Ouachita Parish School Board and the Monroe City School Board have been under a continuous constitutional obligation to disestablish their respective dual school systems. Both
15

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

have failed to discharge this duty, as indicated by the presence of so many one-race schools in each system. The failure or the refusal to fulfill this affirmative duty continues the violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman (Dayton I), 433 U.S. 406, 413, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 2772, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, supra.
The court has found that in 1955, the defendants were still intentionally operating a dual school system in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the mandate of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Brown I), 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954). Until 1965, the school systems had violated their continuing duty to eradicate the effects of that dual system. Considering the current pervasive racial segregation in the two systems, the court feels that it is *391 warranted in finding that the school boards’ failure to fulfill their affirmative duties has tended to perpetuate or increase segregation in the two systems. As the Supreme Court has stated, part of the affirmative duty is the obligation not to take any action that would impede the process of disestablishing the dual system and its effects. Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451, 92 S.Ct. 2196, 33 L.Ed.2d 51 (1972); United States v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education, 407 U.S. 484, 92 S.Ct. 2214, 33 L.Ed.2d 75 (1972).52

52

Both Wright v. Council of City of Emporia and United

States v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education have

been cited by the government as support for proving an

interdistrict violation in this case. Both cases, decided

the same day by the Supreme Court, involved an

attempt to form an independent and separate school

system after Brown v. Board of Education was decided.

These cases have no applicability in the current matter

where it is agreed that the two systems were established

long before Brown v. Board of Education or the filing

of a school desegregation suit. However, the cases are

instructive in defining the parameters of a school

board’s affirmative duty to see that the dual school

system is disestablished.

This court feels that the prior existence of de jure segregation, coupled with the one-race schools in both systems, justifies the presumption of an intent to discriminate on the part of local school authorities. United States v. DeSoto Parish School Board, 574 F.2d 804, 813 n. 20 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 439 U.S. 982, 99 S.Ct. 571, 58 L.Ed.2d 653 (1978); Lee v. Demopolis City School System, 557 F.2d 1053 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1014, 98 S.Ct. 729, 54 L.Ed.2d 758 (1978); Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 616 F.2d 805 (5th

Cir. 1980). In both Monroe City and Ouachita Parish, segregation by law has ended, but neither this event nor subsequently required affirmative steps to desegregate the schools has removed all vestiges of the dual school system.
[6] [7] Of course, the power of the federal courts to compel desegregation in state school systems is circumscribed. The authority to order remedial action depends upon a determination that the state law has discriminated on a basis of a student’s race. See Swann v. CharlotteMecklenburg, supra; Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 96 S.Ct. 2697, 49 L.Ed.2d 599 (1976); Dayton I, supra. It is also clear that de facto segregation alone cannot support a court order mandating affirmative action. Keyes v. School District No. 1, supra; Milliken v. Bradley, supra; Parent Association of Andrew Jackson High School v. Ambach, 598 F.2d 705 (2nd Cir. 1979). This court is bound by this limitation. However, in the anomalous situation facing the court with two political entities servicing the same geographic area, it is fair to presume an intent to segregate and therefore find a constitutional violation when the two systems operate with predominantly one-race schools twenty-five years after Brown.53

53

Candidly, this court is slow to intrude on local political

autonomy. Such a remedy is usually left to the

legislature or a vote of the people. However, in this

case, it is clear that the majoritarian process cannot

correct the anomaly of two school systems serving the

same geographic area. When this anomaly perpetuates

the past effects of a dual school system, judicial

intervention is mandated.

As stated in Milliken :

(N)o state law is above the constitution. School

district lines and the present laws with respect to

local control, are not sacrosanct and if in conflict

with the Fourteenth Amendment federal courts

have a duty to prescribe appropriate remedies.

Milliken, 418 U.S. at 744, 94 S.Ct. at 3127.

Indeed, the friction between these two political

entities has resulted in previous litigation. See, e. g.,

Rutledge v. State of Louisiana, 330 F.Supp. 336

(W.D. of La. 1971) (class action by Parish residents

seeking to prevent City residents from voting in

parish school board elections); Ouachita Parish

School Board v. Monroe City School Board, Civil

Action 11,521, filed in the Fourth Judicial District

Court, Parish of Ouachita, State of Louisiana, on

September 22, 1978. (In this pending state court suit,

Ouachita Parish School Board seeks to enjoin

Monroe City School Board from collecting school

taxes in Parish areas recently annexed by the City.)

The possibility of consolidating the two systems has

been considered long before the present litigation

was filed. (See Appendix VII letter of the Monroe

16

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

City School Board to the Ouachita Parish School Board posing consolidation of the two entities.) However, no action has been taken to separate or consolidate the two systems. When the political process fails to correct such an egregious constitutional violation, judicial intervention is required. See Fiss, Forward: The Forms of Justice, 93 Harv.L.Rev. p. 1 (1979).

[8] Accordingly, this court concludes that a limited interdistrict violation has *392 been established. The remedy tailored to redress this specific wrong is that the two school systems will no longer geographically overlap.54 All students residing within the corporate limits of the City of Monroe will attend Monroe City Schools only. All students residing outside the City limits of Monroe, but within the Parish of Ouachita, will attend Parish Schools only. The overlapping Parish school attendance zones reflected in City Exhibits 14-19 will be abolished. The seven schools with overlapping attendance zones must redraw their zones so that only Parish residents residing outside the City of Monroe can be in attendance.55 The court realizes the problem this will cause with the two schools Ouachita Parish ElementaryJunior High and Ouachita Parish High School which are physically within the boundaries of the City of Monroe. At this time, the court makes no indication of what alternative the Parish may take. It may, of course, bus students from the Parish into these two schools, or it may sell the schools to the City of Monroe. The specifics of this separation shall be worked out in the remedy stage of these proceedings. Finally, the boundaries of the Monroe City School System shall remain co-terminus with the boundaries of the City. This includes any annexations.

54

The usual remedy that comes to mind when a court

speaks in terms of an interdistrict violation is

consolidation of student attendance zones. In this case,

the opposite remedy is ordered separation of zones. An

indication of the unique nature of the litigation

currently before this court.

55

Any transfers under this modified order meeting the

standards required by Singleton shall be allowed. The

Fifth Circuit decision in Singleton v. Jackson Municipal

Separate School District, supra, sets forth the guidelines

for allowing interdistrict transfers:

If the school district grants transfers to students

living in the district for their attendance at public

school outside the district, or if it permits transfers

into the district of students who live outside the

district, it shall do so on a nondiscriminatory basis,

except that it shall not consent to transfers where

the cumulative effect will reduce desegregation in either district or reinforce the dual system. 419 F.2d at 1218-19. See also La.R.S. 17:155.

IV.
[9] Before turning to the intradistrict aspects of this case, the court must address one final issue: the refusal to qualify Ms. Diana May Pearce as the Government’s witness concerning the effects of segregated schools on the housing patterns of the Monroe area.
The admission or exclusion of expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless that discretion has been abused. Bauman v. Centex Corp., 611 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1980); Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681 (5th Cir. 1969); Keystone Plastics v. C. & P. Plastics, 506 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1975). Expert testimony in such a complicated field as urban studies can be extremely helpful to the lay judge wrestling with the many varied disciplines involved in resolving an interdistrict school desegregation lawsuit.56

56

Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized

knowledge will assist the trier of fact to

understand the evidence or to determine a fact in

issue, a witness qualified as an expert by

knowledge, skill, experience, training, or

education, may testify thereto in the form of an

opinion or otherwise.

Cases have held that if the intentional segregative acts of local school officials helped establish the residential patterns of a metropolitan area, then the segregated status of the schools will be found to violate the constitution, despite the otherwise neutral appearance of the official actions. United States v. Texas Education Agency, 600 F.2d 518, 527 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Board of School Commissioners of the City of Indianapolis, 541 F.2d 1211 (7th Cir. 1976), cert. denied 439 U.S. 824, 99 S.Ct. 93, 58 L.Ed.2d 116 (1978). Such a showing was crucial to the Government’s case seeking *393 total consolidation of the two school systems. The court solicited expert testimony on this issue before trial. Dr. Seegers, who had great personal knowledge of the general racial makeup of the different parts of the city, testified at trial. However, the MCSS superintendent did not profess to be a demographer, and he did not attempt to tie his
17

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

general observations about the housing patterns to specific discriminatory acts by local school officials.
This court is slow to apply the stamp of “expert” on a witness, academic qualifications notwithstanding,57 unless the purported expert has had an opportunity to view the individual situation with all its vagaries. Practical application of a witness’ expertise is essential if a reliable opinion is to be formed. See Poland v. Beaird-Poulan, 483 F.Supp. 1256 (W.D.La.1980). On the Friday before the Wednesday trial, the Parish attempted to depose Ms. Pearce. She knew absolutely nothing about the metropolitan area and had no opinion concerning the effect of residential housing patterns on the racial composition of the area schools. The attempted deposition was futile. She then traveled to Monroe for trial and spent approximately one day in the area before attempting to give her opinion on the residential housing patterns. She spent a few hours viewing the system. Neither school systems nor urban areas operate in a vacuum. General textbook theories may not be applied across-the-board in such a complicated matter.

57

Ms. Pearce’s curriculum vitae is GX 61.

The imbroglio surrounding the tendered testimony of this expert is unfortunate. Counsel for the government tendered an expert who had absolutely no familiarity with the Monroe-Ouachita Parish area, yet she was to give testimony affecting 27,900 school children in 50 schools, not to mention countless parents, property values, lifetime investments and two long-standing political entities. The court is not attempting to impugn the professional integrity of either the expert or counsel for the Government. However, this court encountered the same problem with the Government in United States v. Red River Parish Schools, Civil Action No. 14,796 (opinion filed July 23, 1979, W.D. of La.)58 Further, at the time this action was tried, this judge was responsible for two divisions covering most of North Louisiana. This court’s jurisdiction encompassed 21 parishes with at least one school system in each parish.59

58

In footnote 3 of its Opinion in Red River Parish, this

court stated:

The expert witness for the United States estimated

higher capacities for some of the schools but his

testimony in this area can be accorded little weight

as he was never afforded an opportunity to visit

any of the schools.

59

The Caddo Parish desegregation suit was handled by

Chief Judge Nauman S. Scott, Alexandria Division,

Western District of Louisiana, at the time of the trial.

When this court hears a desegregation suit, it is imperative that the parties, in an adversarial context, supply this court with accurate and pertinent information upon which a resolution of difficult constitutional questions can be based. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 703, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). An informed decision is especially necessary when dealing with such a valuable commodity as this country’s school-age children and the nation’s public educational system.
Expert testimony can be most helpful, indeed crucial. This judge is not a professional educator or demographer. The court encouraged and did solicit an expert from the Government; however, this court was asked to place the imprimatur of expert on a witness who knew nothing about the locality. We must not lose sight of our purpose here: to see that all children, black and white, receive quality education in a color blind system. The teachings of Brown and its progeny are a lodestar to this court. No one has helped, no one is advanced in society when such a regrettable lapse has occurred in so important a matter.

VI.
The defendant, Monroe City School Board, has admitted at trial that the School *394 Board has not fulfilled its affirmative obligation to remove all vestiges of a dual system. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, supra; Green v. County Board of Education, supra; Brown II, supra.60 Fourteen years after the original desegregation case was filed, the system is still highly segregated by race. In 1978, four schools were over 90 per cent one race.61 The system’s faculty is also not desegregated pursuant to Singleton requirements.62

60

See trial testimony of Monroe City School System

Superintendent, Dr. Sidney Seegers and closing

remarks of School Board attorney Paul Kidd.

61

GX 48.

62

GX 1 and 21. As stated by the Supreme Court in Swann

:

18

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)
Existing policy and practice with regard to faculty, staff, transportation, extra curricular activities and facilities were among the most important indicia of a segregated system. Swann, 402 U.S. at p. 18, 91 S.Ct. at p. 1277. See also United States v. Montgomery Board of Education, 395 U.S. 225, 89 S.Ct. 1670, 23 L.Ed.2d 263 (1969).
This court has found that the Monroe public schools were officially segregated by race in 1954 when the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education. The dual system persisted in 1965 when the original desegregation suit was filed, and today the Board has admittedly failed to dismantle this dual system. Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman (Dayton I), supra. This failure is systemwide, requiring a system-wide remedy. Keyes v. School District No. 1, supra.
[10] A school system found to be in violation of the constitution has a duty to take the necessary steps to eliminate from the public school system all vestiges of state-imposed segregation. Milliken v. Bradley, supra; Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, supra. If the School Board defaults in this duty, the responsibility of the District Court is equally clear and compelling: to use its broad and flexible remedial powers to implement a remedy, while sensitive to the burdens that can result from a decree and the practical limitations involved, promises “realistically to work now”. Green v. County School Board, supra; Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, supra.
The validity of intervenor Lloyd Gill’s motion is conceded. The present plan, especially the multiple annual school change of the Lee-Carroll-Neville debacle is educationally unsound. The plan has not been successful in stemming white flight.63 Having found the constitutional violation, this court is now required to tailor “the scope of the remedy” to fit the nature and extent of the constitutional violation. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. at 744, 94 S.Ct. at 3127; Swann v. CharlotteMecklenburg, 402 U.S. at 16, 91 S.Ct. at 1276; Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U.S. at 293-4, 96 S.Ct. at 1544-1545. The condition that offends the constitution is de jure segregation in the schools. The remedial measures ordered are not to punish the School Board for its acts, rather the goal is to restore the victims of discriminatory conduct to the position they would have enjoyed in a system free from pervasive de jure segregation. Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, 99 S.Ct. at 2970; Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken II), 433 U.S. 267, 280, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 2757, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977); Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman (Dayton I), 433 U.S. 406, 419, 97

S.Ct. 2766, 2775, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977); United States v. Texas Education Agency, 600 F.2d 518, 530 (5th Cir. 1979). In this case, it is the limited interdistrict violation and the admitted intradistrict violation that has been found pernicious. These violations are to be corrected at the remedy stage of these proceedings.

63

It is interesting to note that the Monroe City School

Board had proposed a new plan on July 5, 1977. See

GX 8. The Board attempted to enter into a consent

decree with the original plaintiffs, adopting this new

plan. When this failed, the plan was dropped and no

further action taken. The Government announced that it

would oppose this plan.

To achieve an educationally-sound, publicly acceptable and racially-balanced plan, this court intends to make use of all available techniques involving many recently developed educational components. To aid in sculpturing a remedy, the court requires the *395 submission of desegregation plans from both the School Board and the Government. If the plaintiff-intervenor, Ada Blakes, and the defendant-intervenor, Lloyd Gill, desire to submit a plan, it will also be considered. To insure success, the court will make the following comments upon the procedure to be used in the remedy stage of these proceedings, as well as certain educational components that should be considered in arriving at a workable desegregation plan. To insure a smooth transition in the separation of the two systems, the Ouachita Parish School Board will also be involved in the aspects of the plan affecting the separation of the attendance zones of the two systems.

VII.
In fashioning and effectuating a desegregation decree, the court will be guided by traditional equitable principles. Practicality and flexibility are essential for adjusting and reconciling public and private interests, as well as achieving the ends of a desegregated school system.64 To assist this court in evaluating and deciding the difficult questions proposed by the remedy phase of this school desegregation case, this court has decided to appoint a Special Master pursuant to Rule 53(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court will give the parties until the close of business on Monday, June 30, 1980, to submit the name of an individual acceptable to all parties as Special Master. If the parties cannot agree, this court will appoint a Special Master.
19

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

64

In fashioning this remedy, “the district judge or the

school authorities should make every effort to achieve

the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation

taking into account the practicalities of the situation.”

Davis v. School Commissioners of Mobile County, 402

U.S. 33, 37, 91 S.Ct. 1289, 1292, 28 L.Ed.2d 577

(1971).

This Special Master will be authorized to collect evidence, to conduct formal and informal hearings, to consult with federal, state and local public officials, to consult with community groups, civic organizations, and others, and to subpoena witnesses and records. With prior leave of this court, he may retain experts, commission studies and reports. It shall be the duty of the Special Master to review initially the remedial plans submitted to the court. He shall consider whether the plans promise to desegregate the Monroe City School System in an effective and timely manner, whether the plans are fair and reasonable, and whether they are educationally sound. He will also supervise the separation of the attendance zones of OPSS and MCSS. The Special Master will also consider the costs of the plans and possible avenues of the funding.
In the event the submitted plans fail to express the full range of options available to the court, the Special Master is authorized to formulate alternative proposals. The Special Master is to submit to the court a report including an evaluative summary of the various plans he has considered, and a recommendation that a particular plan or an amalgamation of different plans be adopted.
The Special Master will remain under close supervision of this court, reporting frequently to this judge on his activities. He need not file findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 53(e)(1). His reports and recommendations shall not be final or given presumptive effect; all matters referred to the Special Master shall remain open for determination by this court.
The Special Master’s compensation and expenses shall be shared equally by all parties. Any party who wishes to file objections to the appointment of the Special Master or to his designation of duties, shall do so within five (5) days of this opinion.
The court will also require that an educational expert be employed in drafting the desegregation plan. If the parties find an expert who could also serve as Special Master, these two functions can be combined. When faced with the polycentric problems involved in the school desegregation remedy, the court needs the expertise and

assistance of a professional educator. The skilled expert who can coordinate the efforts of the parties is crucial if a workable and just *396 remedy is to be devised. Again, the compensation for this expert or expert-Special Master shall be borne equally by all parties. Of course, Ouachita Parish School Board shall only be responsible for compensating for services necessary in implementing a smooth transition in separating the attendance zones of the two systems. It shall in no way be responsible for devising a desegregation plan to be used solely by the Monroe City School System.
The Monroe City School Board may consider a desegregation planning committee with the interest of both the Blakes and Gill intervenors represented, as well as the Ouachita Parish School Board. The bi-racial committees may serve in this capacity. This court would also consider it advisable that a two-stage implementation framework is devised. A third stage, consisting of monitoring, may be necessary at some point in the future.
Phase One shall begin as soon as this opinion is filed. Phase One shall consist of the implementation of certain preparatory programs designed to insure the success of the ultimate desegregation plan arrived at by the parties. To insure that the remedy plan is implemented smoothly and effectively, it is necessary for the defendants to provide the students, parents, school personnel, and the community at large with accurate information concerning the precise ramifications of the remedy phase of this litigation. The defendant should also recognize the need to involve these various groups in the implementation of the remedy phase of this litigation. Actual information dissemination and encouraging community involvement will be left up to the school boards. However, the school boards should strive for rumor control and provide the community with current and accurate information as to the progress of this lawsuit. A community orientation and information service should be a component of the desegregation plan, including allowances for public information and parents/student participation.
Also during Phase One, it shall be necessary for the defendants to orient students and professional staff to the desegregation process. Defendant should prepare and implement in every elementary, junior high, and high school, curricular modifications designed to explain the desegregation process to the students and answer their questions and concerns. Likewise, faculty staff and parental orientation should be of paramount importance. In any plan, the effects on the extracurricular activities of the schools should not be overlooked.
Phase Two shall consist of the implementation of the
20

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

student reassignment plan plus other necessary

desegregation plan components devised by the Monroe

This court pledges to work rapidly and effectively with all

City School Board. Reassignment of pupils shall not

parties to insure the drafting of a workable desegregation

commence until the beginning of the 1981-82 school year.

plan for the Monroe City School System. Likewise, it is

However, the MCSS should take immediate steps to

imperative that an effective transition shall be made in

modify the multiple school changes currently required in

separating the overlapping attendance zones between the

its junior high and high schools.

Monroe City School System and the Ouachita Parish

School System. The problems of the two Parish schools

IT IS ORDERED that the following principles be

within the City, as well as the proximity of various Parish

observed in promulgating the pupil reassignment

schools to the present City boundaries, are complex topics

component of the remedy plan:

that will require further information before a solution is

found. This court approaches with trepidation the

(1) The plan must be capable of desegregating the entire

sensitive task before it. However, in the proper

Monroe City School System. The planners may use any

perspective, and with the help of all parties, a workable

techniques including pairing, clustering, feeder patterns,

solution can be achieved. In closing, the parties and this

boundary changes, attendance zones, or others that they

court will do well to keep in mind the following statement

believe will accomplish optimum desegregation while at

by Justice White:

the same time guaranteeing an educationally sound

system and a halt to white flight.

A variety of procedures and

techniques are available to a

(2) The plan shall refer to a survey of transportation

District Court engrossed in

alternatives and estimated costs.

fashioning remedies in a case such

as this; but the courts must keep in

(3) Alternative schools and career centers may be

mind that they are dealing with the

considered as long as they reflect the proper racial

process of educating the young,

balance.

including the very young. The task

is not to devise a system of pains

The plan should also promise the nondiscriminatory

and penalties to punish

assignment of administrators within the system. Further,

constitutional violations brought to

implementation of the remedy in this case will necessarily

light. Rather, it is to desegregate an

impact upon the assignment of faculty and staff within the

educational system in which the

school system, and may require some faculty and staff

races have been kept apart, without,

adjustments.

at the same time, losing sight of the

central educational function of the

The remedy plan shall not become effective until the start

schools.

of the 1981 school year. *397 However, to insure that the

parties are moving rapidly toward a valid desegregation plan, a joint preliminary report shall be submitted to this court by the close of business on Friday, June 20, 1980.

Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. at 764, 94 S.Ct. at 31363137 (Justice White dissenting).

This preliminary report shall set forth in detail the parties’

efforts in arriving at appropriate student reassignment

	  

plans, transportations plans and faculty and staff

desegregation.

APPENDIX	  I	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  
Student	  Enrollemnt	  By	  Race	  For	  Each	  School	   	  	   	  
In	  The	  Monroe	  City	  School	  System,	  1977-­‐78	  
21

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  
School	   	  	   	  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	  
	  	   	  

Black	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  

White	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  

Total	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  

	  
Elementary:	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Barkdull	  Faulk	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Berg	  Jones	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Carver	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Clara	  Hall	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Clark	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Georgia	  Tucker	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Lexington	   	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

145	  

122	  

267	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

783	  

5	  

788	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

428	  

10	  

438	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

130	  

170	  

300	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

688	  

0	  

688	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

46	  

236	  

282	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

176	  

284	  

460	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

%	  B	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  

%	  W	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  

	  
	  
	  
54.3	   	  	   	   	  
99.4	   	  	   	   	  
97.7	   	  	   	   	  
43.3	   	  	   	   	  
100	   	  	   	   	  
16.3	   	  	   	   	  
38.3	   	  	  

	  
	  
	  
45.7	   	  	   	   	  
.6	   	  	   	   	  
2.3	   	  	   	   	  
56.7	   	  	   	   	  
0	   	  	   	   	  
83.7	   	  	   	   	  
61.7	   	  	  
22

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Lida	  Benton	  

102	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Lincoln	  

659	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Minnie	  Ruffin	  

177	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Sallie	  Humble	  

155	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Sherrouse	  

338	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

Junior	  High:	  

	  

	  	  

	  

-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Carroll	  

332	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Jefferson	  

130	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Lee	  

304	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

High	  School:	  

	  

	  	  

	  

-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	  

	  

	   	  
167	   	  	   	   	  
0	   	  	   	   	  
104	   	  	   	   	  
329	   	  	   	   	  
70	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
	  
88	   	  	   	   	  
499	   	  	   	   	  
96	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  

	   	  
269	   	  	   	   	  
659	   	  	   	   	  
281	   	  	   	   	  
484	   	  	   	   	  
408	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
	  
420	   	  	   	   	  
629	   	  	   	   	  
400	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  

	   	  
37.9	   	  	   	   	  
100	   	  	   	   	  
63.0	   	  	   	   	  
32.0	   	  	   	   	  
82.8	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
	  
79.0	   	  	   	   	  
20.7	   	  	   	   	  
76.0	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  

	   	  
62.1	   	  	   	   	  
0	   	  	   	   	  
37.0	   	  	   	   	  
68.0	   	  	   	   	  
17.2	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
	  
21.0	   	  	   	   	  
79.3	   	  	   	   	  
24.0	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
23

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

	  	   	   	  	   	   Carroll	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Neville	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Wossman	   	  	   	   	  
	  	   	   Total:	   	  	   	  

	  
733	   	  	   	   	  
290	   	  	   	   	  
596	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
6212	   	  	   	  

	  
122	   	  	   	   	  
411	   	  	   	   	  
259	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
2972	   	  	   	  

	  
855	   	  	   	   	  
701	   	  	   	   	  
855	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
9184	   	  	   	  

	  
85.7	   	  	   	   	  
41.4	   	  	   	   	  
69.7	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
67.6	   	  	   	  

	  
14.3	   	  	   	   	  
58.6	   	  	   	   	  
30.3	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
32.4	   	  	   	  

	  

APPENDIX	  II	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

Student	  Enrollment	  By	  Race	  For	  Each	  School	  

	  	  

	  

In	  The	  Monroe	  City	  School	  System,	  1978-­‐79	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  
	  	   	   Elementary:	   	  	  

School	   	  	   	  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	  

Black	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
	  

White	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
	  

Total	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
	  

%	  B	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
	  

%	  W	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
	  
24

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Barkdull	  Faulk	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Berg	  Jones	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Carver	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Clara	  Hall	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Clark	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Georgia	  Tucker	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Lexington	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Lida	  Benton	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Lincoln	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Minnie	  Ruffin	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Sallie	  Humble	   	  	   	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

160	  

122	  

282	  

56.7	  

43.3	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

733	  

6	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

739	  

99.2	  

.8	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

445	  

10	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

455	  

97.8	  

2.2	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

162	  

172	  

334	  

48.5	  

51.5	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

687	  

0	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

687	  

100	  

0	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

29	  

270	  

299	  

9.7	  

90.3	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

158	  

289	  

447	  

35.3	  

64.7	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

116	  

166	  

282	  

41.1	  

58.9	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

618	  

0	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

618	  

100	  

0	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

199	  

75	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

274	  

72.6	  

27.4	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

146	  

329	  

475	  

30.7	  

69.3	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

25

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

	  	   	   Sherrouse	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Junior	  High:	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Carroll	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Jefferson	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Lee	   	  	   	   	  	   	   High	  School:	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Carroll	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Neville	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Wossman	  High	   	  	   	   	  
	  	   	   Total:	   	  	   	  

	  
340	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
	  
381	   	  	   	   	  
516	   	  	   	   	  
271	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
	  
721	   	  	   	   	  
281	   	  	   	   	  
704	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
6667	   	  	   	  

	  
52	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
	  
74	   	  	   	   	  
127	   	  	   	   	  
96	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
	  
130	   	  	   	   	  
361	   	  	   	   	  
222	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
2501	   	  	   	  

	  
392	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
	  
455	   	  	   	   	  
643	   	  	   	   	  
367	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
	  
851	   	  	   	   	  
642	   	  	   	   	  
926	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
9168	   	  	   	  

	  
86.7	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
	  
83.7	   	  	   	   	  
80.2	   	  	   	   	  
73.8	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
	  
84.7	   	  	   	   	  
43.8	   	  	   	   	  
76.0	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
72.7	   	  	   	  

	  
13.3	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
	  
16.3	   	  	   	   	  
19.8	   	  	   	   	  
26.2	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
	  
15.3	   	  	   	   	  
56.2	   	  	   	   	  
24.0	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
27.3	   	  	   	  
26

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

	  	   	  
	  
	  	   	  
	  
	  	   	   Bolay	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Calhoun	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Central	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Claiborne	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Crosley	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Drew	   	  	  

	  

APPENDIX	  III	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

Student	  Enrollment	  By	  Race	  For	  Each	  School	  

	  	  

	  

In	  The	  Ouachita	  Parish	  School	  System,	  1977-­‐78	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

School	   	  	   	  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	  

White	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
463	   	  	   	   	  
364	   	  	   	   	  
369	   	  	   	   	  
565	   	  	   	   	  
166	   	  	   	   	  
481	   	  	  

Black	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
26	   	  	   	   	  
132	   	  	   	   	  
111	   	  	   	   	  
16	   	  	   	   	  
93	   	  	   	   	  
3	   	  	  

Total	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
489	   	  	   	   	  
496	   	  	   	   	  
480	   	  	   	   	  
581	   	  	   	   	  
259	   	  	   	   	  
484	   	  	  

%	  B	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
5.3	   	  	   	   	  
26.6	   	  	   	   	  
23.1	   	  	   	   	  
2.8	   	  	   	   	  
36.0	   	  	   	   	  
.7	   	  	  

%	  W	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
94.7	   	  	   	   	  
73.4	   	  	   	   	  
76.9	   	  	   	   	  
97.2	   	  	   	   	  
64.0	   	  	   	   	  
99.3	   	  	  
27

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

	   	  	   	   Special	  Education	   	  	   	   Eastside	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Jack	  Hayes	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Highland	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Kiroli	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Lakeshore	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Lenwil	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Logtown	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Millsaps	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Mitchell	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Ouachita	  Parish	   	  	   	   High	  School	   	  	   	   	  	   	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

74	  

43	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

1082	  

12	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

336	  

57	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

611	  

1	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

383	  

39	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

427	  

0	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

538	  

39	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

300	  

78	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

135	  

55	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

1061	  

97	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	   	  
117	   	  	   	   	  
	  
1094	   	  	   	   	  
393	   	  	   	   	  
612	   	  	   	   	  
422	   	  	   	   	  
427	   	  	   	   	  
577	   	  	   	   	  
378	   	  	   	   	  
190	   	  	   	   	  
1158	   	  	   	   	  
	  

	   	  
36.8	   	  	   	   	  
	  
1.0	   	  	   	   	  
14.5	   	  	   	   	  
.2	   	  	   	   	  
9.2	   	  	   	   	  
0	   	  	   	   	  
6.8	   	  	   	   	  
20.6	   	  	   	   	  
29.0	   	  	   	   	  
8.4	   	  	   	   	  
	  

	   	  
63.2	   	  	   	   	  
	  
99.0	   	  	   	   	  
85.5	   	  	   	   	  
99.8	   	  	   	   	  
90.8	   	  	   	   	  
100	   	  	   	   	  
93.2	   	  	   	   	  
79.4	   	  	   	   	  
71.0	   	  	   	   	  
91.6	   	  	   	   	  
	  
28

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

Ouachita	  Parish	   	  	   	   Elementary-­‐Junior	   	  	   	   High	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Pinecrest	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Ransom	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Richardson	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Richwood	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Riser	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Robinson	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Special	  Education	   	  	   	   Selman	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Shady	  Grove	   	  	   	   	  	   	   A.	  L.	  Smith	   	  	   	   	  	   	  

1321	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
232	   	  	   	   	  
208	   	  	   	   	  
116	   	  	   	   	  
0	   	  	   	   	  
887	   	  	   	   	  
35	   	  	   	   	  
-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
	  
191	   	  	   	   	  
245	   	  	   	   	  

347	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
2	   	  	   	   	  
140	   	  	   	   	  
94	   	  	   	   	  
905	   	  	   	   	  
104	   	  	   	   	  
451	   	  	   	   	  
-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
	  
249	   	  	   	   	  
79	   	  	   	   	  

1668	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
234	   	  	   	   	  
348	   	  	   	   	  
210	   	  	   	   	  
905	   	  	   	   	  
991	   	  	   	   	  
486	   	  	   	   	  
-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
	  
440	   	  	   	   	  
324	   	  	   	   	  

20.8	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
.9	   	  	   	   	  
40.2	   	  	   	   	  
44.8	   	  	   	   	  
100	   	  	   	   	  
10.5	   	  	   	   	  
92.8	   	  	   	   	  
-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
	  
56.6	   	  	   	   	  
24.4	   	  	   	   	  

79.2	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
99.1	   	  	   	   	  
59.8	   	  	   	   	  
55.2	   	  	   	   	  
0	   	  	   	   	  
89.5	   	  	   	   	  
7.2	   	  	   	   	  
-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
	  
43.4	   	  	   	   	  
75.6	   	  	   	   	  
29

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

Sterlington	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Swartz	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Swayze	   	  	   	   	  	   	   West	  Monroe	  High	   	  	   	   	  	   	   West	  Monroe	  Jr.	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Special	  Education	   	  	   	   Westside	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Woodlawn	   	  	   	   	  
	  	   	   Total:	   	  	   	  

217	   	  	   	   	  
1102	   	  	   	   	  
0	   	  	   	   	  
1453	   	  	   	   	  
631	   	  	   	   	  
54	   	  	   	   	  
	  
563	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
14610	   	  	   	  

63	   	  	   	   	  
23	   	  	   	   	  
546	   	  	   	   	  
194	   	  	   	   	  
70	   	  	   	   	  
45	   	  	   	   	  
	  
20	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
4144	   	  	   	  

280	   	  	   	   	  
1125	   	  	   	   	  
546	   	  	   	   	  
1647	   	  	   	   	  
701	   	  	   	   	  
99	   	  	   	   	  
	  
583	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
18754	   	  	   	  

22.5	   	  	   	   	  
2.0	   	  	   	   	  
100	   	  	   	   	  
11.8	   	  	   	   	  
10.0	   	  	   	   	  
45.5	   	  	   	   	  
	  
3.4	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
22.1	   	  	   	  

77.5	   	  	   	   	  
98.0	   	  	   	   	  
0	   	  	   	   	  
88.2	   	  	   	   	  
90.0	   	  	   	   	  
54.5	   	  	   	   	  
	  
96.6	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	   	  
77.9	   	  	   	  

	  

APPENDIX	  IV	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  
Student	  Enrollment	  By	  Race	  for	  Each	  School	   	  	   	  
30

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

In	  the	  Ouachita	  Parish	  School	  System,	  1978-­‐79	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  
	  	   	   Boley	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Calhoun	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Central	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Claiborne	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Crosley	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Drew	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Special	  Education	   	  	   	   Eastside	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Jack	  Hayes	   	  	   	   	  	  

School	   	  	   	  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	  

White	   	  	   	  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	  
	  
481	   	  	   	   	  
357	   	  	   	   	  
398	   	  	   	   	  
537	   	  	   	   	  
158	   	  	   	   	  
508	   	  	   	   	  
80	   	  	   	   	  

Black	   	  	   	  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	  
	  
17	   	  	   	   	  
138	   	  	   	   	  
108	   	  	   	   	  
19	   	  	   	   	  
80	   	  	   	   	  
2	   	  	   	   	  
51	   	  	   	   	  

Total	   	  	   	  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	  
	  
498	   	  	   	   	  
495	   	  	   	   	  
506	   	  	   	   	  
556	   	  	   	   	  
238	   	  	   	   	  
510	   	  	   	   	  
131	   	  	   	   	  

%	  B	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	  
	  
3.4	   	  	   	   	  
27.9	   	  	   	   	  
21.3	   	  	   	   	  
3.4	   	  	   	   	  
33.6	   	  	   	   	  
.4	   	  	   	   	  
38.9	   	  	   	   	  

%	  W	   	  	   	   -­‐-­‐-­‐	   	  	   	  
	  
96.6	   	  	   	   	  
72.1	   	  	   	   	  
78.7	   	  	   	   	  
96.6	   	  	   	   	  
66.4	   	  	   	   	  
99.6	   	  	   	   	  
61.1	   	  	   	   	  

	  

	  

1093	  

15	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  
1108	   	  	   	   	  

	  

	  

1.4	  

98.6	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

31

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

	   Highland	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Kiroli	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Lakeshore	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Lenwil	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Logtown	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Millsaps	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Mitchell	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Ouachita	  Parish	   	  	   	   High	  School	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Ouachita	  Parish	   	  	   	   Elementary-­‐Junior	   	  	   	   High	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Pinecrest	   	  	   	   	  	  

343	  

45	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

624	  

2	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

490	  

34	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

394	  

0	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

556	  

45	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

277	  

84	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

184	  

54	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

1069	  

107	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

1226	  

329	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

230	  

2	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

388	   	  	   	   	  
626	   	  	   	   	  
524	   	  	   	   	  
394	   	  	   	   	  
601	   	  	   	   	  
361	   	  	   	   	  
238	   	  	   	   	  
1176	   	  	   	   	  
	  
1595	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
232	   	  	   	   	  

11.6	   	  	   	   	  
.3	   	  	   	   	  
6.4	   	  	   	   	  
0	   	  	   	   	  
7.5	   	  	   	   	  
23.3	   	  	   	   	  
22.7	   	  	   	   	  
9.1	   	  	   	   	  
	  
23.1	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
.8	   	  	   	   	  

88.4	   	  	   	   	  
99.7	   	  	   	   	  
93.6	   	  	   	   	  
100	   	  	   	   	  
92.5	   	  	   	   	  
76.7	   	  	   	   	  
77.3	   	  	   	   	  
90.9	   	  	   	   	  
	  
76.9	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
99.2	   	  	   	   	  
32

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

	   Ransom	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Richardson	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Richwood	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Riser	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Robinson	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Special	  Education	   	  	   	   Selman	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Shady	  Grove	   	  	   	   	  	   	   A.	  L.	  Smith	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Sterlington	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Swartz	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Swayze	   	  	   	   	  	   	  

186	   	  	   	   	  
114	   	  	   	   	  
2	   	  	   	   	  
747	   	  	   	   	  
26	   	  	   	   	  
—	   	  	   	   	  

129	   	  	   	   	  
105	   	  	   	   	  
950	   	  	   	   	  
95	   	  	   	   	  
452	   	  	   	   	  
—	   	  	   	   	  

315	   	  	   	   	  
219	   	  	   	   	  
952	   	  	   	   	  
842	   	  	   	   	  
478	   	  	   	   	  
—	   	  	   	   	  

41.0	   	  	   	   	  
47.9	   	  	   	   	  
99.8	   	  	   	   	  
11.3	   	  	   	   	  
94.6	   	  	   	   	  
—	   	  	   	   	  

59.0	   	  	   	   	  
52.1	   	  	   	   	  
.2	   	  	   	   	  
88.7	   	  	   	   	  
5.4	   	  	   	   	  
—	   	  	   	   	  

	  

	  

155	  

282	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

231	  

70	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

171	  

59	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

1162	  

25	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

1	  

573	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  
437	   	  	   	   	  
301	   	  	   	   	  
230	   	  	   	   	  
1187	   	  	   	   	  
574	   	  	   	   	  

	  
64.5	   	  	   	   	  
23.3	   	  	   	   	  
25.7	   	  	   	   	  
2.1	   	  	   	   	  
99.8	   	  	   	   	  

	  
35.5	   	  	   	   	  
76.7	   	  	   	   	  
74.3	   	  	   	   	  
97.9	   	  	   	   	  
.2	   	  	   	   	  

33

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

West	  Monroe	  High	   	  	   	   	  	   	   West	  Monroe	  Jr.	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Special	  Education	   	  	   	   Westside	   	  	   	   	  	   	   Woodlawn	   	  	   	  
Total:	   	  	   	  

1425	   	  	   	   	  
621	   	  	   	   	  
39	   	  	   	   	  
	  
632	   	  	   	   14517	   	  	   	  

173	   	  	   	   	  
63	   	  	   	   	  
48	   	  	   	   	  
	  
17	   	  	   	   4313	   	  	   	  

1598	   	  	   	   	  
684	   	  	   	   	  
87	   	  	   	   	  
	  
649	   	  	   	   18730	   	  	   	  

10.8	   	  	   	   	  
9.2	   	  	   	   	  
55.2	   	  	   	   	  
	  
2.6	   	  	   	   22.5	   	  	   	  

89.2	   	  	   	   	  
90.8	   	  	   	   	  
44.8	   	  	   	   	  
	  
97.4	   	  	   	   77.5	   	  	   	  

*403 APPENDIX V
Monroe City Schools Originally Built For One Race
Black Schools: Berg Jones
Carver Clark Lincoln Carroll Junior High Carroll High
White Schools: Barkdull Faulk

Clara Hall Georgia Tucker Lexington Lida Benton Minnie Ruffin Sallie Humble Sherrouse Jefferson Junior High Lee Junior High Neville High Wossman
Ouachita Parish Schools Originally Built For One Race
Black Schools:
34

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

Boley Central Richardson Richwood Robinson Swayze

White Schools:
Calhoun Claiborne Crosley Drew Highland Jack Hayes Kiroli Lakeshore Lenwil Logtown

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

Millsaps

Mitchell Ouachita Parish High School

Ouachita Parish Junior High

Pinecrest

Ransom

Riser Shady Grove

A. L. Smith Sterlington

Swartz

West Monroe High School

West Monroe Junior High

Woodlawn Mavtec

Westside GX 17 and 47

	  

APPENDIX	  VI	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

White	  Exodus	  From	  City	  System	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  
School	   	  	   	   Years	   	  	  

White	   	  	   	   Students	   	  	  

%	   	  	   	   White	   	  	  

Black	   	  	   	   Students	   	  	  

%	   	  	   	   Black	   	  	  

	  
Total	   	  	  
35

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

	  
	  	   	   1965-­‐66	   	  	   	   	  	   	   1966-­‐67	   	  	   	   	  	   	   1967-­‐68	   	  	   	   	  	   	   1968-­‐69	   	  	   	   	  	   	   1969-­‐70	   	  	   	   	  	   	   1970-­‐71	   	  	   	   	  	   	   1971-­‐72	   	  	   	   	  	   	   1972-­‐73	   	  	   	   	  	   	   1973-­‐74	   	  	   	   	  	   	   1974-­‐75	   	  	   	   	  	   	   1975-­‐76	   	  	   	   	  	   	   1976-­‐77	  

	   	  
5343	   	  	   	   	  
5622	   	  	   	   	  
5791	   	  	   	   	  
5792	   	  	   	   	  
5644	   	  	   	   	  
4342	   	  	   	   	  
4184	   	  	   	   	  
4007	   	  	   	   	  
3395	   	  	   	   	  
3116	   	  	   	   	  
2887	   	  	   	   	  
2868	  

	   	  
50.5	   	  	   	   	  
51.3	   	  	   	   	  
49.5	   	  	   	   	  
52.0	   	  	   	   	  
51.4	   	  	   	   	  
44.8	   	  	   	   	  
43.4	   	  	   	   	  
41.5	   	  	   	   	  
36.9	   	  	   	   	  
33.2	   	  	   	   	  
31.3	   	  	   	   	  
30.8	  

	   	  
5239	   	  	   	   	  
5342	   	  	   	   	  
5897	   	  	   	   	  
5353	   	  	   	   	  
5347	   	  	   	   	  
5311	   	  	   	   	  
5464	   	  	   	   	  
5653	   	  	   	   	  
5814	   	  	   	   	  
6264	   	  	   	   	  
6228	   	  	   	   	  
6447	  

	   	  
49.5	   	  	   	   	  
48.7	   	  	   	   	  
50.5	   	  	   	   	  
48.0	   	  	   	   	  
48.6	   	  	   	   	  
55.2	   	  	   	   	  
56.6	   	  	   	   	  
58.5	   	  	   	   	  
63.1	   	  	   	   	  
66.8	   	  	   	   	  
68.7	   	  	   	   	  
69.2	  

	   	  
10582	   	  	   	   	  
10964	   	  	   	   	  
11688	   	  	   	   	  
11145	   	  	   	   	  
10991	   	  	   	   	  
9653	   	  	   	   	  
9648	   	  	   	   	  
9660	   	  	   	   	  
9209	   	  	   	   	  
9380	   	  	   	   	  
9115	   	  	   	   	  
9315	  
36

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

	  	   	   	  	   	   1977-­‐78	   	  	   	   	  	   	   1978-­‐79	   	  	   	  

	  	   	   	  
2972	   	  	   	   	  
2501	   	  	   	  

	  	   	   	  
32.4	   	  	   	   	  
27.3	   	  	   	  

	  	   	   	  
6212	   	  	   	   	  
6667	   	  	   	  

	  	   	   	  
67.6	   	  	   	   	  
72.7	   	  	   	  

	  	   	   	  
9184	   	  	   	   	  
9168	   	  	   	  

*404 APPENDIX VII
April 2, 1973
Mrs. Marie Louise Snellings, President
Mr. Clem Toston, Member
Mr. Bill DeMoss, Member
Ouachita Parish School Board
Post Office Box 1642
Monroe, Louisiana 71201
Dear Board Members: The State Legislature requested that the school boards of the Monroe City School System and the Ouachita Parish School System meet to discuss any mutual problems they might have and report to the Legislature before its next meeting. The central question in the minds of some legislators, as we understand it, was, “Should the two school systems of Monroe and Ouachita Parish be consolidated?” The President of the Monroe City School Board wrote to the President of the Ouachita Parish School Board proposing that a joint meeting be held by committees from both boards as requested by members of our Legislature. Subsequently, a joint meeting was held and in answer to the major question, “Do you want the two school systems consolidated?” the answer was a unanimous “No”.
Our report could end here as far as the Legislature is concerned, but we might add that our Superintendents have met since the joint board committee meeting and

discussed other matters which might be of concern to both systems.
The Parish Board has suggested that the Monroe Board pay the Ouachita Board fifty dollars per pupil per year for every Monroe child attending a Parish school and vice versa in the case of a Parish child attending a City School. We cannot agree to this since a student attends a school of his own volition, and Ouachita Parish operates a busing system over every section of the City of Monroe, whereas the City School Board does not operate a busing system outside the city limits and has no desire to do so in order to try to bring parish children into the City Schools. We would agree to this proposal only on condition that both school boards mutually agreed in advance for a pupil to enroll in a school of the other *405 system. To do otherwise would create many problems. For example, if a pupil from Lincoln Parish decided he wanted to attend a school in Jackson Parish, just of his own choosing, no one could expect Lincoln Parish to reimburse Jackson Parish for this child’s education. Practiced all over the state, such transferring could be chaotic. The Monroe City School Board, therefore, recommends that students living in Monroe be required to attend Monroe City Schools, if they attend a public school, and that pupils living outside the Monroe City limits in Ouachita Parish be required to attend a public school. Exceptions to this agreement could only be made by mutual approval of both school boards in advance.
Another suggested proposal was that the present city limits be frozen as far as school taxes are concerned. We, the citizens of Monroe, cannot agree to this proposal. It would be very short-sighted and eventually, as the city limits are extended the revenue from property assessment would increase and the number of pupils inside the present city limits would decrease. This same action was taken in Lake Charles several years ago and eventually the Lake Charles City Schools were abolished.
On this subject, let me state that Louisiana is the only one
37

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

of forty-eight states to use the strong Central Parish or County style administrative plan for its public schools. (Maybe it’s just a coincidence that Louisiana ranks at the bottom of the ladder in literacy.) In all the other states cities large enough to support their own school systems do so, and in all other states city school systems and County or Parish School Systems have solved their problems of expanding city limits. In Mississippi, for instance, when the new area taken into the City limits includes a County school, the County school is taken over by the city, and the city in turn assumes all bonded indebtedness for that school. This is one possible solution Monroe and Ouachita Parish might consider. However, it is not a problem that confronts us at the present time.
Our two-school systems have had a very good relationship in the past, and we assure you we shall be happy to discuss any matters of mutual interest at any time satisfactory to you.

hhh Henry Carroll, Vice President Monroe City School Board
hhh Mickey Yerger, Member Monroe City School Board
cc: Honorable K. D. Kilpatrick cc: Honorable E. L. “Bubba” Henry cc: Honorable John Ensminger cc: Honorable William D. Brown cc: Honorable T. W. Humphries

Very truly yours,

cc: Honorable Shady Wall

hhh

cc: Honorable Lawrence Gibbs

Paul J. Neal, President

cc: J. O. Lancaster, Jr.

Monroe City School Board

	  

APPENDIX	  VIII	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

COLUMN	  I	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	   1977-­‐78	  Enrollment	  for	  the	  Monroe	   	  	   	   City	  School	  System:	  
38

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  
	  	   	   Barkdull	  Faulk	   	  	   	   Berg	  Jones	   	  	   	   Carver	   	  	   	   Clara	  Hall	   	  	   	   Clark	   	  	   	   Georgia	  Tucker	   	  	   	   Levington	   	  	   	   Lida	  Benton	   	  	   	   Lincoln	   	  	   	   Minnie	  Ruffin	   	  	   	  

School	   	  	   	  

Black	   	  	   	   	  
149	   	  	   	  
786	   	  	   	  
422	   	  	   	  
138	   	  	   	  
685	   	  	   	  
55	   	  	   	  
181	   	  	   	  
99	   	  	   	  
658	   	  	   	  
165	   	  	   	  

	  
	  
White	   	  	   	   	  
118	   	  	   	   5	   	  	   	  
12	   	  	   	  
173	   	  	   	   0	   	  	   	  
248	   	  	   	  
277	   	  	   	  
157	   	  	   	   0	   	  	   	  
117	   	  	   	  

	  
	  
Total	   	  	   	   	  
267	   	  	   	  
791	   	  	   	  
434	   	  	   	  
311	   	  	   	  
685	   	  	   	  
303	   	  	   	  
458	   	  	   	  
256	   	  	   	  
658	   	  	   	  
282	   	  	   	  
39

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

Sallie	  Humble	   	  	   	   Sherrouse	   	  	   	   Carroll	  Junior	   	  	   	   Jefferson	   	  	   	   Lee	   	  	   	   Carroll	  High	   	  	   	   Neville	  High	   	  	   	   Wossman	  High	   	  	   	  
Total:	   	  	   	   	  	   	   	  	   	  

164	   	  	   	  
330	   	  	   	  
333	   	  	   	  
503	   	  	   	  
308	   	  	   	  
780	   	  	   	  
315	   	  	   	  
658	   	  	   	  
6729	   	  	   	   	  
	  

	  

COLUMN	  II	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	   Total	  Number	  of	  Students	  Who	  Would	   	  	  

323	   	  	   	  
73	   	  	   	  
93	   	  	   	  
141	   	  	   	  
96	   	  	   	  
135	   	  	   	  
448	   	  	   	  
305	   	  	   	  
2721	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  

487	   	  	   	  
403	   	  	   	  
426	   	  	   	  
644	   	  	   	  
404	   	  	   	  
915	   	  	   	  
763	   	  	   	  
963	   	  	   	  
9450	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
40

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

	  

Have	  been	  Assigned	  by	  for	  the	  

	  	  

	  

Interdistrict	  Overlap	  in	  1977-­‐78	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  
	  	   	   Barkdull	  Faulk	   	  	   	   Berg	  Jones	   	  	   	   Carver	   	  	   	   Clara	  Hall	   	  	   	   Clark	   	  	   	   Georgia	  Tucker	   	  	   	   Levington	   	  	   	   Lida	  Benton	   	  	   	   Lincoln	  

School	   	  	   	  

Black	   	  	   	   	  
169	   	  	   	  
1045	   	  	   	  
422	   	  	   	  
151	   	  	   	  
742	   	  	   	  
56	   	  	   	  
183	   	  	   	  
107	   	  	   	  
739	  

	  
	  
White	   	  	   	   	  
133	   	  	   	  
27	   	  	   	  
46	   	  	   	  
271	   	  	   	   4	   	  	   	  
265	   	  	   	  
289	   	  	   	  
163	   	  	   	   4	  

	  
	  
Total	   	  	   	   	  
302	   	  	   	  
1072	   	  	   	  
468	   	  	   	  
422	   	  	   	  
746	   	  	   	  
321	   	  	   	  
472	   	  	   	  
270	   	  	   	  
743	  
41

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

	  	   	   Minnie	  Ruffin	   	  	   	   Sallie	  Humble	   	  	   	   Sherrouse	   	  	   	   Carroll	  Junior	   	  	   	   Jefferson	   	  	   	   Lee	   	  	   	   Carroll	  High	   	  	   	   Neville	  High	   	  	   	   Wossman	  High	   	  	   	  
Total:	   	  	   	   	  	   	   	  	   	  

	  	   	   178	   	  	   	   168	   	  	   	   329	   	  	   	   354	   	  	   	   575	   	  	   	   332	   	  	   	   799	   	  	   	   332	   	  	   	   821	   	  	   	   7502	   	  	   	   	  
	  

	  

COLUMN	  III	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  	   	   299	   	  	   	   339	   	  	   	   187	   	  	   	   132	   	  	   	   294	   	  	   	   129	   	  	   	   186	   	  	   	   521	   	  	   	   440	   	  	   	   3729	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  

	  	   	   477	   	  	   	   507	   	  	   	   516	   	  	   	   486	   	  	   	   869	   	  	   	   461	   	  	   	   985	   	  	   	   853	   	  	   	   1261	   	  	   	   11231	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  
42

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)

	  

Total	  Number	  of	  Students	  Who	  Would	  

	  	  

	  

Have	  been	  Assigned	  but	  for	  the	  

	  	  

	  

Interdistrict	  Overlap	  in	  1977-­‐78	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  
	  	   	   Barkdull	  Faulk	   	  	   	   Berg	  Jones	   	  	   	   Carver	   	  	   	   Clara	  Hall	   	  	   	   Clark	   	  	   	   Georgia	  Tucker	   	  	   	   Levington	   	  	  

School	   	  	   	  

Black	   	  	   	   	  
180	   	  	   	  
1081	   	  	   	  
446	   	  	   	  
186	   	  	   	  
723	   	  	   	  
28	   	  	   	  
157	   	  	  

	  
	  
White	   	  	   	   	  
129	   	  	   	  
23	   	  	   	  
15	   	  	   	  
278	   	  	   	   7	   	  	   	  
281	   	  	   	  
305	   	  	  

	  
	  
Total	   	  	   	   	  
309	   	  	   	  
1104	   	  	   	  
461	   	  	   	  
464	   	  	   	  
730	   	  	   	  
309	   	  	   	  
462	   	  	  
43

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)
	   Lida	  Benton	   	  	   	   Lincoln	   	  	   	   Minnie	  Ruffin	   	  	   	   Sallie	  Humble	   	  	   	   Sherrouse	   	  	   	   Carroll	  Junior	   	  	   	   Jefferson	   	  	   	   Lee	   	  	   	   Carroll	  High	   	  	   	   Neville	  High	   	  	   	   Wossman	  High	   	  	   	   Total:	   	  	   	  
*407 ORDER
For the reasons assigned in the foregoing Ruling,

	   141	  
	  	   	   696	   	  	   	   199	   	  	   	   145	   	  	   	   355	   	  	   	   411	   	  	   	   644	   	  	   	   284	   	  	   	   756	   	  	   	   303	   	  	   	   854	   	  	   	  
7589	   	  	   	  

	   185	  
	  	   	   1	   	  	   	   220	   	  	   	   338	   	  	   	   210	   	  	   	   127	   	  	   	   238	   	  	   	   149	   	  	   	   157	   	  	   	   445	   	  	   	   358	   	  	   	  
3466	   	  	   	  

	   326	  
	  	   	   697	   	  	   	   419	   	  	   	   483	   	  	   	   565	   	  	   	   538	   	  	   	   882	   	  	   	   433	   	  	   	   913	   	  	   	   748	   	  	   	   1212	   	  	   	  
5774	   	  	   	  

IT IS ORDERED that the overlapping student attendance zones between the Monroe City School System and the Ouachita Parish School System be abolished. A student residing within the corporate limits of the City of Monroe can attend only the City school serving his zone of residence. A student residing outside the corporate limits of the City of Monroe, but inside Ouachita Parish, can
44

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375 (1980)
attend only the Parish school serving his zone of residence. The freeze order and concomitant option incorporated in previous decrees of this court are abolished.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Ouachita Parish School Board and the Monroe City School Board form a committee to insure a smooth transition during the separation of the two school systems’ overlapping student attendance zones.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the MCSS devise a new desegregation plan incorporating the two phases outlined in this court’s Ruling. The City shall submit a preliminary report to the court by the close of business on Wednesday, July 30, 1980. In this report, the City shall
	  

inform the court of the progress made in devising a new desegregation plan for MCSS. As indicated in this court’s ruling, no student assignment plan shall become effective until the 1981-82 school year; however, the City may take immediate steps to abolish the multiple school changes currently experienced by its junior high-high school students.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Special Master be appointed to assist this court in devising a desegregation plan for the MCSS and in insuring a smooth transition in a separation of the two systems’ overlapping student attendance zones.
	  
	  

45

 
 Andrews v. City of Monroe, 730 F.2d 1050 (1984)

730 F.2d 1050 United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Jimmy ANDREWS, Etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF MONROE, et al., Defendants, MONROE CITY SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant-
Appellee, v.
Ada BLAKES, et al., Intervenors-Appellants.
No. 83–4053 | Summary Calendar. | April 30, 1984.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana at Monroe, Tom Stagg, Chief Judge, granted a school board motion permitting the board to implement an advanced placement program for the high schools in the school system, commencing with an English program. On appeal by intervenors, the Court of Appeals, Gee, Circuit Judge, held that where advanced placement English was elective course to which no one was “assigned,” and seniors were free to select the course regardless of achievement test scores, school grades, teacher evaluations or school counselor recommendations, the advanced placement English course permitted by trial court did not employ “ability grouping” in violation of previous court order which had been entered in desegregation suit and which prohibited “ability grouping” until system was declared unitary.
Affirmed.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*1051 Jones, Jones & Jones, Benjamin Jones, Monroe, La., for intervenors-appellants.
William G. Kelly, Jr., Monroe, La., for defendantappellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
Before GEE, POLITZ and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
GEE, Circuit Judge:
Ada Blakes, et al., Intervenors, appeal from an order

entered by the district court in this school desegregation case which permitted the city school board of Monroe, Louisiana, to establish an advanced placement program in its high schools.1 We affirm.

1

The historical facts of this case are detailed at length in

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 513 F.Supp. 375

(W.D.La.1980), aff’d. sub nom Taylor v. Ouachita

Parish School Bd., 648 F.2d 959 (5th Cir.1981). This

case, No. 83–4053, was consolidated for appellate

purposes with No. 82–4546. This opinion is dispositive

of No. 83–4053 only.

In the fall of 1982, the district court granted a Monroe City School Board motion which permitted the Board to implement an advanced placement program for the high schools in the school system, commencing with an English program at Neville High School. Intervenors Ada Blakes, et al., a group seeking to promote the interests of the Monroe black community, appeal the ruling, arguing that the program constitutes prohibited ability grouping in violation of Fifth Circuit law and Judge Stagg’s order in this case of July 21, 1981. We conclude that the advanced placement program instituted for academic year 1982–83 does not constitute ability grouping and affirm.
The district court’s order of July 21, 1981, provided, in pertinent part:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendant, Monroe City School Board, cease the use of ability grouping in any form in any of its schools until this court declares the system unitary. This order in no way limits the Board’s discretion to allow development of varying ability levels within classes that have been assigned on a random basis.
The Board envisioned an advanced placement program in the high schools which would provide college level courses in selected subjects with potential college credit. Upon completion of the course the student would receive not only a traditional grade and credit toward high school graduation, *1052 but also eligibility for a test in that subject administered by the College Board. On the strength of that test grade college credit could be given for the same course at participating institutions. The Louisiana State Department of Education urged Louisiana high schools to adopt the College Board advanced
1

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 730 F.2d 1050 (1984)
placement program.
The Board’s specific proposal was to offer an advanced placement English class for academic year 1982–83 at Neville High School. Following the district court’s permission to do so, the course was actually instituted, being offered as an elective course to all Neville High School seniors who had passed English III, the English course required of all juniors. Other than a passing grade in English III, nothing was required of a student who wished to take advanced placement English; it was merely a matter of signing up.
The Ada Blakes group argues that the advanced placement English section is a prohibited ability grouping within the meaning of the July 21, 1981 order and the holdings in Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. Gadsden County School District, 572 F.2d 1049 (5th Cir.1978); Morales v. Shannon, 516 F.2d 411 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1034, 96 S.Ct. 566, 46 L.Ed.2d 408 (1975); and McNeal v. Tate County School District, 508 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir.1975). But none of their contentions are meritorious because they have failed to take into account the definition of “ability grouping.” In her thorough opinion in Castaneda v. Pickard, Judge Randall defined “ability grouping” as “the practice of a school assigning a student to a particular educational program designed for individuals of particular ability or achievement.” Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d at 997 (emphasis added).
	  

High school students enrolled in the school system scrutinized in Castaneda chose, with the assistance of their parents and school counselors, the subjects they wished to study. Because self-selection played such a large part in the process by which those students ended up in a particular course, the Castaneda panel decided that ability grouping was not employed at the high school level in that school system. Id. The logical conclusion from Castaneda is that no high school elective course which may be freely selected by a student without such specific entrance requirements as achievement test scores, school grades, teacher evaluations, or school counselor recommendations can constitute ability grouping.
The same reasoning applies to the advanced placement English class at Neville High School. Advanced placement English was an elective course. No one was “assigned” to it. The seniors were free to select the course regardless of achievement test scores, school grades, teacher evaluations, or school counselor recommendations. We conclude that the advanced placement English program for academic year 1982–83 at Neville High School did not employ ability grouping. The district court’s ruling is
AFFIRMED.
	  
.	   	  

2