Case: U.S. v. Jefferson County Bd. of Ed./Stout v. Jefferson County Bd. of Ed.

2:65-cv-00396 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

Filed Date: June 4, 1965

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is the case in which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals took the firm position that "freedom of choice" plans could be legally insufficient to meet the constitutional obligations of a formerly de jure segregated school system to convert from "dual" to "unitary" schools. 372 F.2d 836 (1966) (Judge John Minor Wisdom), and that the Department of Health Education and Welfare's approach to school desegregation planning was appropriate. It stood in contrast to the opposite view taken by the lower court in Briggs v. Elliot, ("Nothing in the Constitution or in the decision of the Supreme Court takes away from the people freedom the choose the schools they attend. The Constitution, in other words, does not require integration. It merely forbids discrimination.") 132 F.Supp. 776, 777 (E.D.S.C.1955). Not until 1968 did the Supreme Court take a side in this debate, coming down firmly (and unanimously) against freedom of choice as alone sufficient, in Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1968).

On June 4, 1964, an action on behalf of a class of black schoolchildren was filed against the Jefferson County (AL) Board of Education in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., sought to desegregate the public schools of Jefferson County, Alabama. Finding that the school board maintained a racially segregated school system, the district court entered an unpublished order requiring the board to submit a desegregation plan. Following submission of the board's plan, the United States intervened as an additional plaintiff, represented by counsel from the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. Intervention was pursuant to Section 902 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000h-2.

On July 27, 1965, District Judge Seybourn H. Lynne entered an unpublished order approving the Board's plan and overruling objections filed by the plaintiffs and the United States. The plaintiffs and the United States appealed and, on August 17, 1965, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court order and remanded the case for further consideration in light of certain recently-decided appellate cases. United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 349 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1965) (per curiam).

Upon remand, the board filed an amendment to its school desegregation plan which was approved by the district court on August 27, 1965. On October 25, 1965, the United States again appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was consolidated, for briefing purposes, with similar appeals in six other school desegregation cases (United States v. Board of Education of the City of Fairfield; United States v. Board of Education of the City of Bessemer; United States v. Caddo Parish School Board; United States v. Bossier Parish School Board; Johnson v. Jackson Parish School Board; and Banks v. Claiborne Parish School Board). All the cases were from federal district courts in the Northern District of Alabama and the Western District of Louisiana.

A panel of the appellate court reversed the rulings below, and found that the desegregation standards set by guidelines of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) were within the rationale of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), and the congressional objectives of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 372 F.2d 836 (1966) (Circuit Judge John Minor Wisdom). Relying on language in the Supreme Court's second decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955), Judge Wisdom wrote that the Constitution compels formerly de jure segregated public school systems based on dual attendance zones (and using what were called "permissive freedom of choice" plans) to shift to unitary, non-racial systems, with or without federal funds. The court found it appropriate for the federal government to condition local schools' receipt of federal funds on the schools' compliance with the HEW desegregation guidelines (which, according to Judge Wisdom, restated the judicial standards applicable to disestablishing de jure segregation in the public schools) or upon a school's agreement to comply with an applicable court desegregation order. The panel opinion observed that the Constitution is color blind in the sense that "a classification that denies a benefit, causes a harm, or imposes a burden must not be based upon race. But the Constitution is color conscious to prevent discrimination being perpetuated and to undo the effects of past discrimination." Id., at 876. The court then discussed specific elements of a freedom of choice plan which would be mandatory, annual and available to all students, regardless of race. An appendix attached to the opinion consisted of a proposed decree to be entered by the district courts, upon remand, and modified only upon proof of exceptional circumstances.

The appellate panel's opinion was adopted by the full Fifth Circuit's subsequent en banc review of the case. United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 380 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1967) (en banc) (per curiam). The proposed decree was revised in this review, in accordance with updated HEW guidelines. The decree addressed topics including speed of desegregation, exercise of choice, prospective students, transfers, services, facilities and activities, and programs, school equalization, new construction, faculty and staff, and reports to the court. The court emphasized that it was not enough for school boards to offer the opportunity for black children to attend formerly all-white schools. Overcoming the effects of the unconstitutional dual school systems required integration of faculties, facilities, and activities, as well as students. Id.

Details of this case's activity in the district court during the next few years are not currently available to the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse; however, by 1971 an unpublished district court ruling resulted in another appeal to the Fifth Circuit. In a brief order, the appellate court vacated the district court's ruling and directed that, on remand, the district court must require the school board (including the boards of any splinter districts created since the filing of the original action) to implement a student assignment plan compliant with recent Supreme Court precedent. The district court was told (1) to not recognize the creation under state law of splinter school districts having the effect of thwarting the implementation of a unitary school system, (2) to fully implement recent Fifth Circuit precedent relating to faculty and staff desegregation, transfer policy, transportation, school construction and site selection, and attendance outside system of residence, and (3) to require the school board to file semi-annual status reports. Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 448 F.2d 403 (5th Cir. 1971) (per curiam). The appellate ruling was followed by District Judge Sam C. Pointer's issuance of an amended order, on September 8, 1971, addressing details, per attendance zone and otherwise, of the school board's obligations under the decree.

For a time, near-yearly appeals to the Fifth Circuit followed, sometimes involving multiple cases consolidated on appeal. In 1972, a panel of that court upheld Judge Pointer's order, affirming his direction that a county school board take over the operations of a splinter school district when the latter's board refused to comply with the district court's decree. The appellate court required the district judge's annual review of the non-compliance, however, so that local control of schools could be re-established as soon as possible. In its decision, the Fifth Circuit also revised, or required the district court to study and revise, limited aspects of Judge Pointer's order addressing transportation, transfers and school construction. Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 466 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1972) (per curiam). In 1973, an appeal resulted in an opinion that affirmed the district court's order modifying certain attendance zones and transforming, at the county school board's request, a formerly all-black high school into an integrated center for exceptional children. Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 483 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. 1973) (per curiam). On remand, Judge Pointer addressed additional attendance zones within the school district. Then, when one high school's subsequent attendance figures suggested a white boycott was occurring, the school board sought modification of the judge's orders. Judge Pointer denied the request and the board appealed. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding the board could not show an abuse of discretion had occurred, since the district judge's action resulted from an in-chambers, unreported hearing. Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 489 F.2d 97 (5th Cir. 1974) (per curiam). The writ to the Supreme Court was denied. 411 U.S. 930. 410 U.S. 928.

During the period following issuance of the 1971 decree, the United States also appealed. Once, when Judge Pointer refused to modify attendance zones for two elementary schools in accord with a federal proposal, his decision resulted in maintaining the schools as all black. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that the district judge acted in the context (1) of already-achieved dismantling of the dual public school system in Jefferson County, (2) of concern for the risk to children stemming from lengthy bussing over busy roads and through mountains, and (3) with an experienced-based assessment that his decision minimized the risk of further white boycotting of the schools. Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 537 F.2d 800 (5th Cir. 1976) (Circuit Judge Thomas Gibbs Gee). The appellate court observed, however, that this limited existence of single-race schools in the county's now unitary school system warranted continued scrutiny of the school system by the district court. Id. The United States' application for rehearing or for rehearing en banc was denied. Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 544 F.2d 1342 (5th Cir. 1976) (Circuit Judge Gee).

Over a decade later, the unitary status of Jefferson County's public remained an issue. By this time, the former Fifth Circuit had been divided into two courts, one retaining the Fifth Circuit appellation and the newer one forming as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. With Alabama included in the Eleventh Circuit's boundaries, the new court had jurisdiction over an appeal resulting from Judge Pointer's action. In his district court in August 1987, a group of black schoolchildren filed as plaintiffs. They lived in an area recently annexed from the county into a city. This led to their being assigned to attend heavily black city schools, with the county schools the plaintiffs would have attended then being predominately white. Plaintiffs sought an injunction allowing them to remain in the county school system. Judge Pointer denied the requested relief in an unpublished order. He relied upon the fact that the city schools had been declared unitary, that the county school board did not cause the change in attendance districts, and that that board had been following a consistent policy applied in all cases of annexation.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. Circuit Judge Phyllis A. Kravitch, writing for the court, noted that the plaintiffs wrongly sought interdistrict relief without demonstrating both an interdistrict violation and interdistrict effect, contrary to Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974). The argument that, despite the involvement of two school systems, the plaintiffs actually sought intradistrict relief (with the requested injunction simply being a means to ensure the effectiveness of the original desegregation order applicable to the county) also failed, since the city system had already been declared unitary and the plaintiffs sought essentially permanent relief, depriving a locality of control over its schools without a finding of a constitutional violation. As for Jefferson County's school system, Judge Kravitch noted the Fifth Circuit's 1976 ruling (above) declaring that the county now operated a unitary system, the qualification of that declaration via the continuation of court supervision over the district, and a later Eleventh Circuit statement (in a different case, Brown v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 808 F.2d 1445 (11th Cir. 1987)) that the county system had yet to be declared unitary. Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 845 F.2d 1559 (5th Cir. 1988).

Again, over a decade passed. On September 15, 2000, prompted by the proposed closure of two schools, a consent order proposed by the parties was signed by District Judge Inge Prytz Johnson. The order, which included supporting data, required certain attendance zone modifications and student reassignments. The order cited the defendant school board's acknowledgment that it had failed to appropriately monitor intra-district transfers for compliance with applicable court rulings and set out plans to remedy that shortcoming.

Over forty years after this case began, the district court continued to require compliance by Jefferson County's public schools with constitutional standards and the 1971 remedial order. In May 2005, Judge Johnson approved an unpublished consent order (twice modifying it that August) which approved the operation, within Jefferson County, of the City of Trussville's newly-formed school system. The order reflects that counsel for the plaintiffs, for the United States and for the defendants were all apprised, in advance, of the planned new system and given the opportunity to review relevant information concerning its formation, operation and impact, so that the court could ensure that there would be no impediment to the desegregation process. The order included an inter-district transfer policy, a pupil transportation policy, and plans for attendance zone issues arising during the transitional period. Acknowledging the impact of new legislation, the order also addressed the impact of transfers which might result from requirements imposed on schools by provisions of the federal "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001," 20 U.S.C. §§ 6316. The consent order explicitly observed that the new district was subject to the court's 1971 order and imposed detailed reporting requirements for the Trussville school board. One of Judge Johnson's August 2005 modifications approved certain student transfers requested under the No Child Left Behind Act, noting that transfer obligations the Act imposed on the board can fundamentally conflict with transfer guidelines in prior desegregation orders issued by the court.

In an unpublished August 7, 2007, order, upon motion from the county school board, Judge Johnson again approved proposed student transfers for the upcoming school year, as had been requested under the No Child Left Behind Act. Court supervision continued, with Judge Johnson approving, in an unpublished August 24, 2007, order, a joint motion seeking approval of the county board's plan to build a new middle school. In following months, school boards subject to court supervision in this case continued to file status reports with the court.

On May 26, 2009, the Court approved a modification to school zone lines; on January 1, 2010 approved more construction projects; and on April 14, 2011, approved a grade reconfiguration and classroom construction.

On July 29, 2011, the Court issued an order modifying the existing desegregation order to allow transfers under No Child Left Behind that fundamentally conflicted with the existing desegregation order for the 2010-2011 school year.

Between 2011 and 2016, status reports continued to be filed and the court oversaw the school district’s plans for student assignment and district rezoning. The student assignment chart described placement of each student in elementary, middle, and high school schools within in the district for the academic year. Additional plans for district rezoning were also submitted to the court for approval. The court granted a motion to reconfigure certain grades and to introduce a middle school IB program for the district on July 25, 2016 in a memorandum opinion and order. 2016 WL 3971429. Also in 2016, the case’s docket number was changed for administrative purposes and easier access to no. 2:16-mc-00199. The orders and status reporting from the prior docket were refiled. Continuing from 2016 until the latest case update in 2019, status reports, motions for student assignments, motions for district rezoning, and motions for transfer plans of students continued.

During March 2014, the Gardendale Municipal School System was created, intending to separate from the Jefferson County systems. Consulting firms and a national search for a superintendent were part of an effort to change the environment in Gardendale, where there had been complaints that classes were too large and test scores were too low. The separation was highly problematic in that it would separate one of the high schools with the most resources from the district, a school that was 90% white with above a 90% graduation rate.

On April 24, 2017, the court ordered that the Gardendale Municipal School district’s proposals for separation and ratios were motivated by race and had attempted to evade the valid desegregation order, not including two elementary schools that warranted separation for practical considerations. The court also stated that the county had successfully attracted a racially and geographically diverse student body to the school through the county's good faith efforts to comply with the desegregation order, comporting with basic notions of fairness. 250 F.Supp.3d 1092 (N.D. Ala.)

The case was subsequently appealed. On February 13, 2018, the court affirmed the finding of the lower court that the separation plan violated the constitution by impeding the desegregation efforts of the Jefferson County Board. 882 F.3d 988. The case was remanded with instructions to deny the motion of the Gardendale board to secede.

On May 4, 2018, both the school district and the United States of America filed status reports regarding the “Green Factor Assessment,” based upon Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1968), as a tool for assessing a school district’s compliance with a desegregation order: student assignment, faculty and staff assignment, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities, stating that compliance could not be fully measured until new measures of transportation were imposed.

On June 21, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to substitute the named class representatives, which was granted on the 26th.

As of November 27, 2019, the enforcement of desegregation measures against the school district continued with regular required status reports and the district being required to request permission from the court for all changes to zoning, student assignment, faculty and staff assignment, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities.

	Document
1 2:65-cv-00396	Docket [Pre-PACER] Stout v. Jefferson County School Board	Sept. 5, 2001	Sept. 5, 2001 Docket
2:16-mc-00199	Docket Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education	Jan. 3, 2020	Jan. 3, 2020 Docket
2:65-cv-00396	Docket (PACER) Stout v. Jefferson County	Jan. 6, 2020	Jan. 6, 2020 Docket
2:65-cv-00396	Appendix to Briefs of United States, vol 4 U.S. v. Jefferson County U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit	April 25, 1966	April 25, 1966 Pleading / Motion / Brief
2:65-cv-00396	Appendix to Briefs of United States, vol 3 U.S. v. Jefferson County U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit	April 25, 1966	April 25, 1966 Pleading / Motion / Brief
2:65-cv-00396	Appendix to Briefs of United States, vol 2 U.S. v. Jefferson County U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit	April 25, 1966	April 25, 1966 Pleading / Motion / Brief
2:65-cv-00396	Appendix to Briefs of United States, revised vol 1 U.S. v. Jefferson County U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit	April 25, 1966	April 25, 1966 Pleading / Motion / Brief
23345	Brief for the United States U.S. v. Jefferson County U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit	April 25, 1966	April 25, 1966 Pleading / Motion / Brief
23345	Supplemental Memorandum of the United States U.S. v. Jefferson County U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit	June 3, 1966	June 3, 1966 Pleading / Motion / Brief
23345 23192 23274 23331 23335 23365 23173	Opinion U.S. v. Jefferson County U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit	Dec. 29, 1966	Dec. 29, 1966 Order/Opinion 372 F.2d 836

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
The Supreme Court and Southern School Desegregation, 1955-1970: A History and Analysis J. Harvie Wilkinson III			None
Henry Hampton Collection: Interview of James Armstrong James Armstrong, Henry Hampton Collection	This interview was done for Henry Hampton's Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years (1954-1965). James Armstrong along with eight other black families filed suit in 1957 against the School B…	Jan. 1, 1979	Jan. 1, 1979 http://digital.wustl.edu/...
Henry Hampton Collection: Interview of Judge John Minor Wisdom Judge John Minor Wisdom, Henry Hampton Collection	This interview was done for Henry Hampton's Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years (1954-1965). John Minor Wisdom was born on May 17, 1905, in New Orleans. He received his A.B. from Washingt…	Oct. 31, 1985	Oct. 31, 1985 http://digital.wustl.edu/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	NOTICE of Electronic Filing of MANUAL DOCKET SHEET for filings from June 4, 1965 through September 2001 when automated. (KEK) (Entered: 10/27/2014)	June 4, 1965	June 4, 1965 Clearinghouse
54	COMPLAINT against Jefferson County Board of Education filed by Plaintiff, Linda Stout. Originally filed 6/4/1965 in 65−cv−396 (KEK) (Entered: 04/15/2016)	June 4, 1965	June 4, 1965
2	COMPLAINT against Jefferson County Board of Education filed by Plaintiff, Linda Stout. (KEK) (Entered: 04/15/2016)	June 4, 1965	June 4, 1965 PACER
55	MOTION FOR PRILIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Plaintiff, Linda Stout. Originally filed 6/4/1965 in 65−cv−396 (KEK) (Entered: 04/15/2016)	June 4, 1965	June 4, 1965
3	MOTION FOR PRILIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Plaintiff, Linda Stout. (KEK) (Entered: 04/15/2016)	June 4, 1965	June 4, 1965 PACER
226	AMENDED ORDER in response to petitions for modification and clarification filed by several dft boards of education, amending orders of 8/24/71 & 8/25/71 filed (maps att) ( by Judge Sam C. Pointer Jr ) cm (ASL) (Entered: 09/20/2001)	Sept. 8, 1971	Sept. 8, 1971 Clearinghouse
735	CONSENT ORDER by the parties approving joint motion for consent order filed ( by Judge Inge P. Johnson ) cm (ASL) Modified on 09/21/2001 (Entered: 09/20/2001)	Sept. 15, 2000	Sept. 15, 2000 Clearinghouse
758	ORDER granting 6 petitions for transfer to various schools as set out in petitions; after hearing on 8/21/01; setting 11/30/01 9:00 a.m. hearing of parties w/invitation to Mayor of Irondale & other possible mayors who may choose to participate; parties to ascertain compliance w/court orders in time to ensure fair & orderly zoning & transfer process prior to beginning of 2002-2003 school year filed ( by Judge Inge P. Johnson ) cm (ASL) (Entered: 09/20/2001)	Aug. 22, 2001	Aug. 22, 2001 PACER
764	TRANSCRIPT of hearing held before Judge Inge P. Johnson on 8/21/01, filed - Court Reporter Penny L. Adams (ASL) (Entered: 09/07/2001)	Sept. 6, 2001	Sept. 6, 2001 PACER
765	ORDER denying motion by Karla McGrady for court approval to allow Patrick & Tyler McGrady to attend Gardendale schools together (motion filed 9/5/01/docketed on manual docket sheet); court finds the motion with respect to Patrick MOOT filed ( by Judge Inge P. Johnson ) cm (ASL) (Entered: 09/07/2001)	Sept. 7, 2001	Sept. 7, 2001 PACER
766	CONSENT ORDER regarding transfers for the 2001-02 school year as set out in this order filed ( by Judge Inge P. Johnson ) cm (ASL) (Entered: 09/07/2001)	Sept. 7, 2001	Sept. 7, 2001 PACER
767	NOTICE (letter) filed by atty Whit Colvin for defendant Jefferson Cty Bd Ed to Teresa Willcutt regarding phone call about transfer requests (filed at direction of Judge Johnson) cs (ASL) (Entered: 09/13/2001)	Sept. 11, 2001	Sept. 11, 2001 PACER
768	MOTION (joint) by plaintiff Linda Stout, intervenor-plaintiff USA and defendant Jefferson Cty Bd Ed for order to approve proposed schedule as set out in this motion filed (ASL) (Entered: 10/02/2001)	Oct. 1, 2001	Oct. 1, 2001 PACER
769	AMENDED MOTION (joint) by plaintiff Linda Stout, intervenor-plaintiff USA and defendant Jefferson Cty Bd Ed for order to approved proposed schedule as set out in this motion filed (ASL) (Entered: 10/04/2001)	Oct. 4, 2001	Oct. 4, 2001 PACER
770	769 - ORDER granting motion for order to approved proposed schedule as set out in this motion [769-1] ( by Judge Inge P. Johnson ) entered cm (ASL) (Entered: 10/05/2001)	Oct. 5, 2001	Oct. 5, 2001 PACER
771	768 - ORDER finding the motion for order to approve proposed schedule as set out in this motion [768-1] moot ( by Judge Inge P. Johnson ) entered cm (ASL) (Entered: 10/05/2001)	Oct. 5, 2001	Oct. 5, 2001 PACER
772	MOTION (joint) by plaintiff Linda Stout, intervenor-plaintiff USA and defendant Jefferson Cty Bd Ed for order approving letter to area mayors & city attys filed (ASL) (Entered: 10/05/2001)	Oct. 5, 2001	Oct. 5, 2001 PACER
773	772 - ORDER approving motion for order approving letter to area mayors & city attys [772-1] ( by Judge Inge P. Johnson ) entered cm (ASL) (Entered: 10/10/2001)	Oct. 9, 2001	Oct. 9, 2001 PACER
774	NOTICE filed by defendant Jefferson Cty Bd Ed of Report (no signature) (ASL) (Entered: 10/15/2001)	Oct. 12, 2001	Oct. 12, 2001 PACER
775	NOTICE filed by Midfield City Board of Education of REPORT (ASL) (Entered: 10/23/2001)	Oct. 22, 2001	Oct. 22, 2001 PACER
776	NOTICE filed by the City of Vestavia Hills Board of Education of REPORT cs (ASL) Modified on 11/06/2001 (Entered: 11/06/2001)	Nov. 6, 2001	Nov. 6, 2001 PACER
777	NOTICE filed by Homewood Board of Education of REPORT cs (ASL) (Entered: 11/07/2001)	Nov. 6, 2001	Nov. 6, 2001 PACER
778	ORDER on the court's own motion ; status conference scheduled for 11/30/01 is re-set for 9:00 a.m. on 11/29/01 in Bham AL filed ( by Judge Inge P. Johnson ) cm (ASL) Modified on 01/29/2002 (Entered: 11/19/2001)	Nov. 19, 2001	Nov. 19, 2001 PACER
779	ORDER by agreement of the parties ; Additional Status conference to be held at 9:00 a.m. on 1/29/02 in Bham AL; status conference held 11/29/01 ; status conference shall be limited to actual parties to this litigation filed ( by Judge Inge P. Johnson ) cm (ASL) Modified on 01/29/2002 (Entered: 11/29/2001)	Nov. 29, 2001	Nov. 29, 2001 PACER
780	ORDER approving Joint Report on Transfer Procedure for implementation effective w/2002-03 school year which includes explanatory info & descriptive material covering Boards' plans for training personnel & effectuating the Guidelines w/extensive supporting maps & exhibits The Joint Report supplements and to extext inconsistent supersedes the 1971 Order filed [Joint Report on Transfer Procedure att to this Order] ( by Judge Inge P. Johnson ) cm (ASL) Modified on 02/08/2002 (Entered: 01/29/2002)	Jan. 29, 2002	Jan. 29, 2002 PACER
781	MOTION (joint) by plaintiff Linda Stout, intervenor-plaintiff USA, & defendant Jefferson Cty Bd Ed for court approval of inter-district transfer guidelines filed w/exh A att (ASL) (Entered: 02/11/2002)	Feb. 8, 2002	Feb. 8, 2002 PACER
782	MOTION by defendant Jefferson Cty Bd Ed for court approval of attendance zone modifications for the consolidation of the Grantswood/Shades Valley & the Grantswood/Leeds attendance zones filed w/exhs att cs (ASL) (Entered: 02/11/2002)	Feb. 8, 2002	Feb. 8, 2002 PACER
783	ORDER approving dft Jefferson County Bd of Education's motion for court approval of attendance zone modifications for the consolidation of the Grantswood/Shades Valley & the Grantswood/Leeds attendance zones [782-1] filed ( by Judge Inge P. Johnson ) cm (ASL) (Entered: 02/11/2002)	Feb. 11, 2002	Feb. 11, 2002 PACER
784	781 - ORDER granting parties' motion for court approval of inter-district transfer guidelines [781-1] ( by Judge Inge P. Johnson ) entered cm (ASL) (Entered: 02/12/2002)	Feb. 11, 2002	Feb. 11, 2002 PACER
785	NOTICE filed by defendant Jefferson Cty Bd Ed of report no cs/no signature [in white box w/red top] (ASL) (Entered: 02/19/2002)	Feb. 14, 2002	Feb. 14, 2002 PACER
786	NOTICE filed by Midfield City Board of Education of REPORT (ASL) (Entered: 02/20/2002)	Feb. 20, 2002	Feb. 20, 2002 PACER
787	NOTICE/REPORT filed by the Board of Education of the City of Vestavia Hills cs (ASL) (Entered: 02/25/2002)	Feb. 25, 2002	Feb. 25, 2002 PACER
788	NOTICE/REPORT filed by Homewood City School System cs (ASL) (Entered: 03/12/2002)	March 11, 2002	March 11, 2002 PACER
789	ORDER the court declines to rule on individual requests for transfers, finding such requests shall be governed by the procedure set forth in the Transfer Guidelines approved by order entered on 1/29/02 780 filed ( by Judge Inge P. Johnson ) cm (ASL) (Entered: 07/09/2002)	July 9, 2002	July 9, 2002 PACER
790	MOTION (joint) by plaintiff Linda Stout & defendant Jefferson Cty Bd Ed for order to modify desegregation order filed w/exhs att cs (ASL) (Entered: 08/06/2002)	Aug. 6, 2002	Aug. 6, 2002 PACER
791	RESPONSE by intervenor-plaintiff USA to pla Stout & dft Jeff County Bd of Ed's joint motion for order to modify desegregation order [790-1] filed [faxed copy filed pursuant to IPJ] cs (ASL) (Entered: 08/06/2002)	Aug. 6, 2002	Aug. 6, 2002 PACER
792	ORDER granting joint motion for order to modify desegregation order [790-1]; pursuant to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, all students attending Brighton Middle School will be allowed the opportunity to transfer to a school which has not been identified for school improvement as set out in this order filed by Judge Inge P. Johnson cm (ASL) (Entered: 08/06/2002)	Aug. 6, 2002	Aug. 6, 2002 PACER
793	NOTICE of appearance for intervenor-plaintiff USA by Sarah A Dunne filed cs (ASL) (Entered: 08/07/2002)	Aug. 7, 2002	Aug. 7, 2002 PACER
794	MOTION by intervenor-plaintiff USA to substitute original response for facsimile filed on 8/6/02 filed cs (ASL) (Entered: 08/07/2002)	Aug. 7, 2002	Aug. 7, 2002 PACER
795	RESPONSE by intervenor-plaintiff USA to pla Stout & dft Jeff County Bd Ed's joint motion for order to modify desegregation order [790-1] filed [original] cs (ASL) (Entered: 08/07/2002)	Aug. 7, 2002	Aug. 7, 2002 PACER

Case: U.S. v. Jefferson County Bd. of Ed./Stout v. Jefferson County Bd. of Ed.

2:65-cv-00396 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details