Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_70-cv-03102/USCOURTS-almd-2_70-cv-03102-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN AND EASTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY T. LEE, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor )

and Amicus Curiae, )

)

NATIONAL EDUCATION )

ASSOCIATION, INC., )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor, ) 

) CIVIL ACTION

v. ) NOS.

)

LEE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) 3:70cv845-MHT

RUSSELL COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) 3:70cv848-MHT

TALLAPOOSA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) 3:70cv849-MHT

ALEXANDER CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) 3:70cv850-MHT

AUBURN CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) 3:70cv851-MHT

OPELIKA CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) 3:70cv853-MHT

PHENIX CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) 3:70cv854-MHT

ROANOKE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) 3:70cv855-MHT

BUTLER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) 2:70cv3099-MHT

COVINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) 2:70cv3102-MHT

ELMORE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) 2:70cv3103-MHT

CRENSHAW COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) 2:66cv2455-MHT

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION ON STATE-WIDE FACILITIES ISSUE

On April 20, 2006, in these local school-desegregation cases, this court

wrote that, “The parties have submitted to the court a proposed consent decree

on the state-wide facilities issue that is ‘fair, adequate, and reasonable,’ ...

is not illegal or against public policy, ... and thus meets the requirement of

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Lee v. Lee County Bd. of

Educ., 2006 WL 1041994 *1 (M.D. Ala. 2006) (citation omitted). The court

therefore approved the consent decree. Id.

Case 2:70-cv-03102-MHT-TFM Document 544 Filed 04/28/09 Page 1 of 2
The 2006 consent decree contained the following provision regarding

termination:

“33. The Court shall continue to retain jurisdiction of

this matter to ensure full compliance with the terms and

conditions of this decree until the date that is

twenty-four (24) months after either (1) the beginning

of implementation of the training by the State

Department of Education or (2) the beginning of

implementation of the collection, review and approval

process by the State Department of Education, whichever

shall last occur. This date shall be referred to as the

‘projected termination date.’ The State Department of

Education shall file a certification with the Court

confirming the latter implementation date and thus

establishing the projected termination date. On the

projected termination date, this action shall be placed

on the Court's administrative active docket. At any

time prior to that date, any party may move the Court to

reinstate the action to the active docket for resolution

of any relevant issues and for the entry of appropriate

relief. If no such motion is filed prior to the

projected termination date, the statewide facilities

issues portion of this action shall be automatically

dismissed with prejudice, in its entirety, as of that

date, and this decree shall be forever terminated.”

Id. at *9.

On April 13, 2009, all parties filed a joint notice of compliance stating

that they “submit that the Decree has been complied with in full and that they

are in agreement that the statewide facilities issue is due to be dismissed with

prejudice.” Based on the representations made by the parties in the notice as

well as the representations made during an on-the-record conference on April 27,

2009 (including that a fairness hearing is not warranted because one was held

prior to the approval of the consent decree), the court agrees that there has

been full compliance with the consent decree and that the state-wide facilities

issue should be dismissed.

An appropriate judgment will be issued.

DONE, this the 28th day of April, 2009.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:70-cv-03102-MHT-TFM Document 544 Filed 04/28/09 Page 2 of 2