Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_68-cv-02709/USCOURTS-almd-2_68-cv-02709-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

TIMOTHY D. POPE, )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor, )

)

JOHNNY REYNOLDS, et al., )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors, )

)

EUGENE CRUM, JR., et al., )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

) 2:68cv2709-T

TOMMY G. FLOWERS, et al., ) (WO)

)

Defendants. )

)

ALABAMA STATE CONFERENCE )

OF NAACP BRANCHES, )

)

Amicus Curiae. )

ORDER

This litigation is again before the court, this time on

whether the court should implement the preliminary relief

Case 2:68-cv-02709-MHT-CSC Document 735 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 6
1. Two orders were entered on April 29. One contained

suggested preliminary relief (Doc. No. 723), and the other

set forth a framework for discovery (Doc. No. 724).

2

suggested in its show-cause order of April 29, 2005.1

 The

defendants agree to the relief; intervenor Timothy Pope not

only agrees to the relief, he has also filed a motion

expressly asking for such relief. Plaintiff United States

of America opposes the interim relief and instead requests

that the no-bypass rule be terminated immediately and

permanently without allowing for any additional discovery

and without resolving any of the currently pending

discovery disputes; and the African-American intervenors

oppose any relief, preliminary or permanent.

For the reasons stated in the court’s April 29 order and

based on Pope’s motion, the court will grant the suggested

preliminary relief. The court, however, makes these

additional findings. First, for the reasons set forth in

the court’s April 29 order and pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.

60(b), the defendants and Pope have established “that a

significant change in circumstances warrants” a suspension

of the no-bypass rule. Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk

Case 2:68-cv-02709-MHT-CSC Document 735 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 6
3

County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383, 112 S.Ct. 748, 760 (1992).

More specifically, there has been “a significant change ...

in factual conditions [and] in law,” id. at 383, 112 S.Ct.

at 760; and the “proposed [preliminary] modification is

suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.” Id.

Second, the court rejects the African-American

intervenors' contention that it has not made specific

findings of fact and reached specific conclusions of law to

support the interim relief. This order and the April 29

order provide such. 

Third, the African-American intervenors have had

sufficient time and opportunity to develop the record upon

which the court relies. Indeed, to adopt the AfricanAmerican intervenors’ view, the court would essentially have

to wait until all evidence has been developed, thereby

defeating the necessary interim relief. As the court stated

in its April 29 order, the continued implementation of the

race-conscience, indeterminate, across-the-board no-bypass

rule without any recent court review and re-authorization

during its extended existence, is, on its face,

Case 2:68-cv-02709-MHT-CSC Document 735 Filed 05/20/05 Page 3 of 6
2. In its April 29 order, the court said the continued

need for the no-bypass rule had not been reviewed since

1970. The court was incorrect. In 1976, the no-bypass rule

was extended to include other state departments and

officials not included in the 1970 injunction. United

States v. Frazer, 1976 WL 729 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 20, 1976).

However, the conclusions reached by the court in its April

29 order remain unchanged.

3. Order entered April 29, 2005 (Doc. No. 724), at 3.

See also supra note 1.

4. Defendants' response (Doc. No. 725), at 3.

4

unconstitutional.2

 By providing for only interim, rather

than permanent, relief at this time, the court gives the

African-American intervenors an opportunity to cure this

defect, if they can; in the meantime, however, the rule

simply cannot remain in effect.

Finally, the defendants take issue with a separate,

discovery order entered on April 29 directing the magistrate

judge “to see if a plan can be developed for more extensive,

but still quite limited, discovery.”3

 They argue that “the

companion discovery order will almost certainly foment

future discovery disputes that could quickly overwhelm the

parties and the Court.”4

 The court has not unconditionally

directed the magistrate judge to develop a plan for more

Case 2:68-cv-02709-MHT-CSC Document 735 Filed 05/20/05 Page 4 of 6
5

discovery. Rather, the magistrate judge is to work with the

parties to see “if” a plan can be developed. In addressing

this “if,” the magistrate judge should consider not only

whether any additional discovery is relevant but, if so, the

defendants' articulated concern as well.

Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of

the court as follows:

(1) The joint motion to terminate the no-bypass rule

(Doc. No. 634) is treated as a motion for

preliminary relief filed by defendants and said

motion is granted.

(2) Plaintiff intervenor Timothy Pope’s motion for

preliminary relief (Doc. No. 732) is granted.

(3) Pending final resolution of the joint motion to

terminate the no-bypass rule (Doc. No. 634) and the

motion to modify injunction as to the no-bypass

rule (Doc. No. 659), the application of the nobypass rule is suspended, effective no later than

June 20, 2005. The court assumes that the

defendants need a reasonable period of time to put

Case 2:68-cv-02709-MHT-CSC Document 735 Filed 05/20/05 Page 5 of 6
this suspension into effect in an orderly and fair

manner. 

DONE, this the 20th day of May, 2005.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:68-cv-02709-MHT-CSC Document 735 Filed 05/20/05 Page 6 of 6