Opinion ID: 313353
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 34

Heading: Rights of Other School Districts To Be Made Parties and To Be Heard

Text: 569 In his Ruling on Propriety of Considering a Metropolitan Remedy the District Court defined the metropolitan area for the present purposes to comprise the three counties of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. In his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support of Ruling on Desegregation Area and Development Plans the District Court noted that the court has taken no proofs with respect to the establishment of the boundaries in the counties of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. In his Ruling on Desegregation Area and Order for Development of Plan of Desegregation, the District Court defined the desegregation area to include some 53 school districts. Certain of these school districts have intervened in this case, but have not yet been afforded an opportunity to offer proof. Some of the other school districts are not parties to the litigation. 570 In United States v. Texas Education Agency, 467 F.2d 848, 873 (5th Cir. 1972), the Court said: 571 The discriminatory acts of the school authorities infect the entire school system; they are particularly obvious in the so-called 'pockets'. Some schools may be the 'result' of state-imposed segregation even though no specific discriminatory school board action may be shown as to those schools. Had the school authorities not specifically segregated the minority students in certain schools other schools may have developed as desegregated facilities. Thus, though they may not be 'pockets of discrimination', these schools are the 'results' of discrimination. 572 Under the authorities heretofore discussed, these school districts are arms and instrumentalities of the State of Michigan. Nevertheless, under Michigan law, they may sue and be sued. See M.S.A. Secs. 15.3154, 15.3192, M.C. L.A. Secs. 340.154, 340.192. 573 Rule 19, Fed.R.Civ.P., provides that a person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party to the action if in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties. Under this rule joinder of necessary parties is required if jurisdiction over them can be obtained and if joinder will not defeat federal jurisdiction of the case. 574 We hold that school districts which are to be affected by the decree of the District Court are necessary parties under Rule 19. As a prerequisite to the implementation of a plan in this case affecting any school district, the affected district first must be made a party to this litigation and afforded an opportunity to be heard. 575 While agreeing with the District Court in its conclusion that it can consider a metropolitan remedy, we express no views as to the desegregation area set forth in the orders of the District Court. 576 We vacate the order of March 24, 1972, entitled Ruling on Propriety of a Metropolitan Remedy to Accomplish Desegregation of the Public Schools of Detroit. 577 This Court recognizes that, as set forth above, the legislature of the State of Michigan has power to provide a complete remedy for the unconstitutional segregation disclosed in this record. It, too, has responsibility for following the great mandates of the United States Constitution. 578 If, however, the legislature fails to act, or it it acts in a manner inconsistent with the expeditious and efficient elimination of the unconstitutional practices and conditions described in this opinion, the District Court shall proceed to fashion such a remedy, including an interim remedy if found to be necessary, as it shall determine to be appropriate within the guidelines of this opinion. 579 On remand, any party against whom relief is sought, including school districts which heretofore have intervened and school districts which hereafter may become parties to this litigation, shall be afforded an opportunity to offer additional evidence, and to cross-examine available witnesses who previously have testified, on any issue raised by the pleadings, including amendments thereto, as may be relevant and admissible to such issues. The District Court may consider any evidence now on file and such additional competent evidence as may be introduced by any party. However, the District Court will not be required to receive any additional evidence as to the matters contained in its Ruling on the Issue of Segregation, dated September 27, 1971, and reported at 338 F. Supp. 582, or its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the Detroitonly plans of desegregation, dated March 28, 1972. We hold that the findings of fact contained in these rulings are not clearly erroneous, Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., but to the contrary are supported by substantial evidence. 580 Upon remand, the plaintiffs and other parties shall be permitted to amend their pleadings to conform to the evidence (see Rule 15(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.), to add additional parties and to ask for any additional appropriate relief, the details of such amendments to be under the continuing supervision of the District Court. 581 We also vacate the District Court's Ruling on Desegregation Area and Development Plan, dated June 14, 1972, reported at 345 F.Supp. 914, except those parts of the order appointing a panel charged with the duty of preparing interim and final plans of desegregation. The panel appointed by the District Court is authorized to proceed with its studies and planning under the direction of the District Court. Pending further orders of the District Court or this Court, the defendants and school districts involved will continue to supply administrative and staff assistance to the panel upon its request. Until further order of the court, the reasonable costs incurred by the panel will be paid as provided by the District Court's order of June 14, 1972. 582 The order of the District Court directing the purchase of school buses, dated July 11, 1972, also is vacated, subject to the right of the District Court, in its discretion, to consider the entry of another order requiring the purchase of school buses at the appropriate time.