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, City of St. Louis 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 Education 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 Education of the City of St. Louis Dr. John
Docket: 96-2994
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; May 7, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
The case involves multiple plaintiffs, including minors represented by their parents and various civil rights organizations like the NAACP, alongside the City of St. Louis. They are in a legal dispute against numerous defendants, primarily the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, its individual members, and the Superintendent of Schools, as well as various state officials and boards of education from surrounding areas. The case highlights issues related to educational governance and civil rights, indicating a broad coalition of plaintiffs advocating for changes against a wide array of educational and governmental entities. The complexity of the case is underscored by the involvement of numerous parties, both plaintiffs and defendants, suggesting significant legal and social implications surrounding education in St. Louis.
The legal document pertains to a case involving multiple plaintiffs, including minors represented by their guardians, the NAACP, and the United States, against various defendants including the Board of Education of St. Louis City and members of the Missouri state government. The plaintiffs seek redress from the defendants, who are primarily educational and governmental entities in St. Louis County and the City of St. Louis. The case was heard in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, with two specific case numbers (96-2994, 96-3630). The appeal was submitted on January 13, 1997, and decided on January 28, 1997, with a denied rehearing request on May 7, 1997. The St. Louis Teachers' Union is noted as an intervenor in the proceedings.
John R. Munich, Assistant Attorney General, represented the State of Missouri in a legal proceeding involving the St. Louis School District, with various attorneys representing other parties including the U.S. Department of Justice and the NAACP. The court, en banc, had previously affirmed a 1984 settlement for the integration of the St. Louis School District, leading to over eighteen appeals primarily concerning the state's financial responsibilities related to the integration plan.
In October 1991, the State requested the district court to declare the St. Louis School District unitary, a motion opposed by plaintiffs, including the United States and the St. Louis Board of Education. Although the State later moved for partial unitary status, the district court deemed this request premature. An amended motion for unitary status was filed by the State in November 1993, with a proposal to present evidence within nine to twelve months, but most parties still found it premature. By October 1994, the State sought a hearing date for its motion, which was scheduled but subsequently postponed to March 1996 to accommodate all parties.
In January 1996, the State filed a conditional motion to terminate a component of the desegregation program allowing voluntary student transfers between the St. Louis School District and suburban schools, contingent upon the court not declaring unitary status. This motion elicited diverse responses, including requests from the plaintiffs for a settlement coordinator and a postponement of the unitary status hearing. In February 1996, the district court denied the State's conditional motion, stating it was not ripe for adjudication and expressed a preference for an agreed-upon plan to end court supervision, suggesting that the potential for settlement might increase post-hearing.
The State did not appeal a district court's order denying its motion regarding unitary status. An evidentiary hearing took place from March 4 to March 26, 1996, but the court has not yet ruled on the State's unitary status motion. On April 23, 1996, the court indicated that the preferred resolution would be a mutually agreed plan to end court oversight of the St. Louis Public Schools, directing parties to negotiate in good faith under settlement coordinator Dr. William H. Danforth. The court also stayed the post-hearing briefing and maintained existing components of the settlement agreement.
Subsequently, the State filed a motion to amend the court’s order, contesting the coordinator’s authority to make recommendations and proposing a limited negotiation timeframe. On June 26, 1996, the court ruled that negotiations would remain confidential and rejected the time limit suggested by the State, expressing confidence in the coordinator's diligence.
On July 24, 1996, the State appealed two district court orders and sought to stay the interdistrict components of the desegregation remedy pending appeal. The district court denied the stay on August 14, 1996, and similar motions were denied by the circuit court later that month. The State's appeal of the denial of the stay was consolidated with other appeals.
The court dismissed all three appeals, noting that the appeals related to settlement procedures and case management are interlocutory and not subject to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). It emphasized the district court's broad discretion in managing its docket in school desegregation cases. Regarding the order denying the stay, the court found it not appealable and clarified that the district court had not ruled on the State’s unitary status motion but had merely deferred a decision. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the State’s claim of error. All appeals were thus dismissed.
