No. 96-2994

Michael C. Liddell, a minor, * by Minnie Liddell, his mother * and next friend; Kendra * Liddell, a minor, by Minnie * Liddell, her mother and next * friend; Minnie Liddell; * Roderick D. LeGrand, a minor, * by Lois LeGrand, his mother * and next friend; Lois LeGrand; * Clodis Yarber, a minor, by * Samuel Yarber, his father and * next friend; Samuel Yarber; * Earline Caldwell; Lillie * Caldwell; Gwendolyn Daniels; * National Association for the * Advancement of Colored People; * United States of America; *
* Plaintiffs-Appellees; * * Appeals from the United States City of St. Louis, * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Plaintiff; * *
v. * * The Board of Education of the * City of St. Louis; Hattie R. * Jackson, President, The Board * of Education of the City of * St. Louis; Rev. Earl E. Nance, * Jr., a member of the Board of * Education of the City of St. * Louis; Renni B. Shuter, a * member of the Board of Educ- * ation of the City of St. Louis; * Paula V. Smith, a member of * the Board of Education of the * City of St. Louis; Dr. Albert * D. Bender, Sr., a member of the * Board of Education of the City * of St. Louis; Eddie G. Davis, * a member of the Board of Educa- * tion of the City of St. Louis; * Dr. John P. Mahoney, a member * of the Board of Education of *

### 2

the City of St. Louis; Marybeth * McBryan, a member of the Board * of Education of the City of St. * Louis; Thomas M. Nolan, a * member of the Board of Educa- * tion of the City of St. Louis; * William Purdy, a member of the * Board of Education of the City * of St. Louis; Robbyn G. Wahby, * a member of the Board of Educa- * tion of the City of St. Louis; * Madye Henson Whithead, a member * of the Board of Education of * the City of St. Louis; * Dr. Cleveland Hammonds, Jr., * Superintendent of Schools for * the City of St. Louis; *
* Defendants-Appellees; *
* Ronald Leggett, St. Louis * Collector of Revenue; *
* Defendant; *
* State of Missouri; Mel * Carnahan, Governor of the * State of Missouri; Jeremiah W. * (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General; * Bob Holden, Treasurer; Richard * A. Hanson, Commissioner of * Administration; Robert E. * Bartman, Commissioner of * Education; Missouri State * Board of Education, and its * members; Thomas R. Davis; * Gary M. Cunningham; Sharon M. * Williams; Peter F. Herschend; * Jacqueline D. Wellington; * Betty E. Preston; Russell V. * Thompson; Rice Pete Burns; *
* Defendants-Appellants; *
* Special School District of * St. Louis County; Affton Board * of Education; Bayless Board of * Education; Brentwood Board of * Education; Clayton Board of * Education; Ferguson-Florissant * Board of Education; Hancock * Place Board of Education; *

### 3

Hazelwood Board of Education; * Jennings Board of Education; * Kirkwood Board of Education; * LaDue Board of Education; * Lindbergh Board of Education; * Maplewood-Richmond Heights * Board of Education; Mehlville * Board of Education; Normandy * Board of Education; Parkway * Board of Education; Pattonville * Board of Education; Ritenour * Board of Education; Riverview * Gardens Board of Education; * Rockwood Board of Education; * University City Board of * Education; Valley Park Board of * Education; Webster Groves Board * of Education; Wellston Board of * Education; St. Louis County; * Buzz Westfall, County Execu- * tive; James Baker, Director of * Administration, St. Louis * County, Missouri; Robert H. * Peterson, Collector of St. * Louis County "Contract * Account," St. Louis County, * Missouri; The St. Louis Career * Education District; *
* Defendants-Appellees; *
* St. Louis Teachers' Union, * Local 420, AFT, AFL-CIO. *
* Intervenor Below-Appellee. *

No. 96-3630

Michael C. Liddell, a minor, * by Minnie Liddell, his mother * and next friend; Kendra * Liddell, a minor, by Minnie * Liddell, her mother and next * friend; Minnie Liddell; * Roderick D. LeGrand, a minor, * by Lois LeGrand, his mother * and next friend; Lois LeGrand; * Clodis Yarber, a minor, by * Samuel Yarber, his father and *

### 4

next friend; Samuel Yarber; * Earline Caldwell; Lillie * Caldwell; Gwendolyn Daniels; * National Association for the * Advancement of Colored People; * United States of America; *
* Plaintiffs-Appellees; *
* City of St. Louis, *
* Plaintiff; * *
v. * * The Board of Education of the * City of St. Louis; Hattie R. * Jackson, President, The Board * of Education of the City of * St. Louis; Rev. Earl E. Nance, * Jr., a member of the Board of * Education of the City of St. * Louis; Renni B. Shuter, a * member of the Board of Educ- * ation of the City of St. Louis; * Paula V. Smith, a member of * the Board of Education of the * City of St. Louis; Dr. Albert * D. Bender, Sr., a member of the * Board of Education of the City * of St. Louis; Eddie G. Davis, * a member of the Board of Educa- * tion of the City of St. Louis; * Dr. John P. Mahoney, a member * of the Board of Education of * the City of St. Louis; Marybeth * McBryan, a member of the Board * of Education of the City of St. * Louis; Thomas M. Nolan, a * member of the Board of Educa- * tion of the City of St. Louis; * William Purdy, a member of the * Board of Education of the City * of St. Louis; Robbyn G. Wahby, * a member of the Board of Educa- * tion of the City of St. Louis; * Madye Henson Whithead, a member * of the Board of Education of * the City of St. Louis; * Dr. Cleveland Hammonds, Jr., *

### 5

Superintendent of Schools for * the City of St. Louis; *
* Defendants-Appellees; *
* Ronald Leggett, St. Louis * Collector of Revenue; *
* Defendant; *
* State of Missouri; Mel * Carnahan, Governor of the * State of Missouri; Jeremiah W. * (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General; * Bob Holden, Treasurer; Richard * A. Hanson, Commissioner of * Administration; Robert E. * Bartman, Commissioner of * Education; Missouri State * Board of Education, and its * members; Thomas R. Davis; * Gary M. Cunningham; Sharon M. * Williams; Peter F. Herschend; * Jacqueline D. Wellington; * Betty E. Preston; Russell V. * Thompson; Rice Pete Burns; *
* Defendants-Appellants; *
* Special School District of * St. Louis County; Affton Board * of Education; Bayless Board of * Education; Brentwood Board of * Education; Clayton Board of * Education; Ferguson-Florissant * Board of Education; Hancock * Place Board of Education; * Hazelwood Board of Education; * Jennings Board of Education; * Kirkwood Board of Education; * LaDue Board of Education; * Lindbergh Board of Education; * Maplewood-Richmond Heights * Board of Education; Mehlville * Board of Education; Normandy * Board of Education; Parkway * Board of Education; Pattonville * Board of Education; Ritenour * Board of Education; Riverview * Gardens Board of Education; * Rockwood Board of Education; * University City Board of *

### Liddell v. Missouri , 731 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir. 1984). 1



### 6 Education; Valley Park Board of * Education; Webster Groves Board * of Education; Wellston Board of * Education; St. Louis County; * Buzz Westfall, County Execu- * tive; James Baker, Director of * Administration, St. Louis * County, Missouri; Robert H. * Peterson, Collector of St. * Louis County "Contract * Account," St. Louis County, * Missouri; The St. Louis Career * Education District; *
* Defendants-Appellees; *
* St. Louis Teachers' Union, * Local 420, AFT, AFL-CIO. *
* Intervenor Below-Appellee. *

Submitted: January 13, 1997
Filed: January 28, 1997

Before MCMILLIAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

In 1984, this court, sitting en banc, affirmed an order of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri approving a settlem ent agreement to integrate the St. Louis School District. Sinc e 1 then, as elements of the plan have been implemen ted, over eighteen appeals have been before this court, usually on questions relating to th e
respo nsibilityof the State of Missouri to fund various aspects of th e plan.

### 7 InOcto ber 1991, the State moved the district court to declare th e St. Louis School District unitary. This motion was resisted by th e plaintiffs, the United States, and the St. Louis Board of Education. No
response was filed by the State. In May 1992, the State filed a new motio n requestingpartial unitary status. Later that month, the district court held that the State's request was premature but permitted the State t o

answer certain discovery requests stating that the possibility existed tha t a declaration of unitary status might be appropriate in the future.

InNovemb er 1993, the State filed an amended motion for unitar y status. It informed the court that it would be prepared to present it s evi dence in support of the motion within nine to twelve months. Mos t parties again responded that the motion was still premature. In October 1994, the State asked the district court to set a date for a hearing on it s motion. In February 1995, the district court granted the State's request and scheduled a hearing for September of that ye ar. The hearing was later resched uledfor March 1996 to accommodate the schedules of the twent y parties to the case.

InNove mber 1996, the State filed a motion with the district cour t to terminate promptly an element of the desegreg ation program that permits bla ckstudents residing in the St. Louis School District to voluntaril y transfer to a suburba n school, requires the State to fund such transfers, andalso permits limited voluntary transfers of suburban students to the
St. L ouis School District. The motion was "conditional," as the Stat e requeste dthe court to consider the motion only if it did not enter a n order finding that the St. Louis School District had achieved a unitar y status

. The motion provoked varied responses, including that th e plaintiffs and the United States urged the court to appoint a settlement coordinator to attempt to resolve the litigation , and the City Board asked that the pending hearing on unitary status be postponed.

### 8 In February, the district court denied the State's conditional motion

as ha ving been improvidently filed and not ripe for adjudication. Th e court stated:

The Court agrees with plaintiffs that t he best resolution of thi s case would be an agreed-upon plan for endin g Court supervision of the St. Louis Public Schools. Th e Court[,] however[,] is reluctant to con tinue the hearing. It maywell be that the possibility for settlement wil l be greater following the hearing, at which time th e appointment of a Settlement Coordinator would b e appropriate and beneficial.

Liddell , G(1939)96, at 2 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 15, 1996). The State did no t appeal the district court's order denying its motion.

The court held an evidentiary hearing on the State's unitary status motionfrom March 4 through March 26, 1996. The court has yet to decide that motion. Following the hearing, the court entered an order on April 23, 1996 stating that the preferred conclusion of the case would be a n agreed- uponplan for ending court supervision of the St. Louis Publi c Schools. It determined that a serious settlement effort under th e directionof the settlement coordinator, Dr. William H. Danforth, should be undertaken. It ordered the parties to partic ipate in good faith in the negoti ations. It stayed the post-hearing briefing schedule and ordere d that all components of the settlement agreement then in force shoul d continue in effect. Liddell , G(2062)96 (E.D. Mo. April 23, 1996).

The State then filed a motion to alter or amend the court's orde r appointingDr. Danforth, arguing that the settlement director should not be authorized to make recommendations to the court as to the disposition of the case, that only twenty-five days should be allowed for negotiations , and raising several other objections.

OnJun e 26, 1996, the court ruled that the negotiations would b e confidential from the court and outside parties, that the

### 9

coordinat or would not recommend to the court how the case should b e resolved, and rejected the time limit for negotiations proposed by th e State expressing conf idence that the settlement coordinator would proceed with all due diligence. Liddell , G(2134)96 (E.D. Mo. June 26, 1996).

On July 2 4, 1996, the State appealed the two district court orders. The State also sought to stay the interdistrict components of the present desegregation remedy pending appeal of the orderappointing the settlement coordi nator. The State sought alternative remedies limiting it s obligations under the desegregation plan. The district court denied the motions for the stay pending appeal on August 14, 1996. Liddell , G(2175)9 6 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 14, 19 96). This court and Justice Thomas as circuit judge denied substantially similar motions for a stay pending appeal o n August 23, 1996 and August 30, 1996, respectively. On October 1, 1996, th e State appealed district court order G(2175)96 denying the State's motion for a sta y pending appeal. All three appeals have been consolidated by this court.

We dismiss all three appeals. The appeals from orders G(2062)96 and G(2134)96 are interlocutory and relate to settlement procedures and case management. They cannot be characterized as appeals from orders denying

an injunction. Thus, these appeals are not within the purview of 28 U.S.C

. § 1292 (a)(1). A district court, particularly in school desegregatio n
cases, has broad discretion to control its docket and has the necessar y flexib ilityto shape remedies that adjust public and private needs

. Milliken v. Bradley , 433 U.S. 267, 288 (1977); Brown v. Board of Educ. , 34 9 U.S. 294, 300 (1955).

With respect to district court orderG(2175)96, the denial of a stay
pen dingappeal is not an appealable order. The State argues that th e district court erred because it effectively denied its motion for unitary status. We disagree. The district court has

### 10

yet to rule on the State's unitary status motion. The district court in this case has not refused to rule on the State's motion that the St. Louis School District be declared unitary. It has sim ply postponed post-hearing briefingand deferred final ruling on this matter. We cannot review a matter that has not been ruled on by the district court. We lac k jurisdiction over the State's claim that the district court has erroneousl y denied its motion for unitary status.

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the State's appeals.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.