Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - maldef

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 2:70-cv-00014-OLG Document 124 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 4 of 1996, Ex. 8 at 1; App.- Ex. P-1 (“1995 Plan”). The parties agreed to incorporate the gradearrangement plan into the desegregation plan, and also agreed to include additional reportingrequirements for the District. See id. at Ex. 7, Supplement to Desegregation Order in Morales v.Shannon; attached to App.- Ex. P-2. The Court granted that motion and modified the planaccordingly. See Order dated May 5, 1995.In July 2002, the District filed its Second Motion for Modification of the Decree. 5In themotion, the District requested the implementation of a School District of Choice Program.Among other obligations under the Choice Program, the District would develop a specialcurricula program at the Batesville School and allow students from Uvalde to attend theBatesville School and students from Batesville to attend the Uvalde schools. See Dkt. No. 97.The motion was granted and the Court subsequently amended the plan a second time.On June 5, 2007, Plaintiffs sent to Defendants a letter inquiring about the District’sdecision to transfer all seventh and eighth grade students from the Batesville School to UvaldeJunior High, and whether the District intended to seek court approval for the transfer. See Letterto District, App.- Ex. P-3. Plaintiffs also requested that the District forward copies of theDistrict’s Annual Report for the last 3 years. The District responded by stating that theBatesville transfer issue did not require court approval. See Letter from Cook, June 15, 2007;App.- Ex. P-4. After a second request by Plaintiffs for documents related to the Batesvilletransfer and for a complete Annual Report, Plaintiffs instead received the pending motion todismiss from Defendants without any notice from the District. 6Defendants now ask fordismissal from the court’s jurisdiction altogether, based primarily on the mere passage of time5 Plaintiffs’ argument related to the Batesville School transfer issue is addressed in their response to the District’ssecond motion to modify and is fully incorporated herein. See Dkt. No. 114.6 Plaintiffs also received from Defendants an amended annual report from the District, but as explained below, thistoo did not meet the Court’s Order.4
Case 2:70-cv-00014-OLG Document 124 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 5 of 19and the changing demographics. 7However, as explained below, such overly broad, unsupportedassertions do not satisfy their burden to support dismissal of the Court’s order.ArgumentThe goal of a school desegregation plan has been defined as the transition from a dualsystem to a unitary, nonracial system of public education. Green, 391 U.S. at 436. In order for acourt to determine whether it should discontinue judicial oversight, two central questions must beaddressed by the movant: 1) whether the defendant school district “ha[s] complied in good faithwith the desegregation decree since it was entered;” and 2) “whether the vestiges of pastdiscrimination ha[ve] been eliminated to the extent practicable." Frazar v. Ladd, 457 F.3d 432,439 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 491-492 (1992)). Additionally,Defendants must demonstrate that retention of judicial control is unnecessary or impracticable toachieve compliance with the order in the various facets of the system and the district hasdemonstrated to the public and to the parents and the students of the once disfavored races agood faith commitment to the whole of the order and to those provisions of the law and theConstitution that laid the predicate for judicial intervention. Freeman, 503 U.S. at 491.Defendants’ motion should be denied because they fail to satisfy their burden of provinggood faith compliance with the desegregation plan and the elimination of the vestiges ofdiscrimination. Tellingly, Defendants provide virtually no evidence of compliance with theactual provisions of the desegregation plan. The vestiges of discrimination continue in theDistrict through racially disparate student assignments to schools and classrooms, racially7 Defendants also allege Plaintiffs have never complained of the District’s compliance over the last thirty years. SeeDefs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 6 12. Although such “inaction” would be of no consequence in relieving Defendants oftheir burden in this case, complaints and official reports of the differing treatment of Latinos are well documented.See, e.g., Memorandum of Agreement entered between LULAC and the District, App.- Ex. P-5; 1995 Plan, Ex. P-1(referring to findings of 1992-93 TEA audit); 2001 Audit of Uvalde CISD, App.- Ex. P-6. (This exhibit is quitelengthy. For brevity purposes, Plaintiffs attach pages 63-150.) Plaintiffs also negotiated with Defendants issuesrelated to the 1995 amended plan.5
Page 1 and 2: Case 2:70-cv-00014-OLG Document 124
Page 3: Case 2:70-cv-00014-OLG Document 124
Page 19: Case 2:70-cv-00014-OLG Document 124

Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - maldef

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?