Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NOS. 3:70cv845-MHT, 3:70cv848-MHT, 3:70cv849-MHT, 3:70cv850-MHT, 3:70cv851-MHT, 3:70cv853-MHT, 3:70cv854-MHT, 3:70cv855-MHT, 2:70cv3099-MHT, 2:70cv3102-MHT, 2:70cv3103-MHT, 2:66cv2455-MHT.
April 28, 2009
Plaintiff, Anthony T. Lee et al., represented by Dennis D. Parker, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, New York, NY, Fred Jr. David Gray, Gray Langford Sapp McGowan Gray Nathanson, Tuskegee, AL, Fred Sr. D. Gray, Gray Langford Sapp McGowan Gray Nathanson, Tuskegee, AL, Gloria J. Browne-Marshall, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, New York, NY, John Mark Englehart, Beasley Allen Crown Methvin Portis Miles PC, Montgomery, AL, Kenneth Lamar Thomas, Thomas Means Gillis Seay PC, Montgomery, AL, Valerie LaShawn Acoff, Bessemer, AL, Norman J. Chachkin, NAACP Legal Defense Educ'l Fund, Inc., New York, NY.
Intervenor Plaintiff, United States of America, represented by, Anita S. Hodgkiss, U. S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities, Washington, DC, Charles Redding Pitt, John D Saxon PC, Birmingham, AL, Isabelle Katz Pinzler, U S Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, Jeanette Lim, U S Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, Jeremiah Glassman, U S Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, John R. Moore, U S Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, Kathleen S. Devine, U S Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, Kathryn Woodruff, U S Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, Kenneth Mines, U S Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, Kenneth E. Vines, U.S. Attorney's Office, Montgomery, AL, Pauline Ann Miller, U S Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, Stephen Michael Doyle, United States Attorney's Office — ALM, Middle District of Alabama, Montgomery, AL, Intervenor Plaintiff, National Education Association, Inc., represented by Fred Jr. David Gray, Tuskegee, AL, Fred Sr. D. Gray, Tuskegee, AL.
Defendant, Lee County Board of Education the individual members thereof, represented by Johnson Russell Gibson, III, Phelps Jenkins Gibson Fowler LLP, Tuscaloosa, AL, William Freeman Horsley, Samford Denson Horsley Pettey Bridges Hughes, Opelika, AL, Defendant, Superintendent of Education, represented by William Freeman Horsley, Opelika, AL.
Defendant, State of Alabama, Board of Education, represented by, Anita L. Kelly, Department of Education, Office of General Counsel, Montgomery, AL, Denise Boone Azar, Department of Insurance, Receivership Division, Montgomery, AL, Gregory Marion Biggs, Dept of Corrections, Legal, Montgomery, AL, Juliana Faria Teixeira Dean, Alabama Department of Education, Montgomery, AL, Larry Eugene Craven, Department of Education, Office of General Counsel, Montgomery, AL, Michael R. White, State Department of Education, Office of General Counsel, Montgomery, AL, Reginald Lee Sorrells, Department of Education, Office of General Counsel, Montgomery, AL, Whit Colvin, Bishop, Colvin, Johnson Kent, Birmingham, AL, Constance S. Barker, Capell Howard PC, Montgomery, AL.
Defendant, Superintendent of Education, Board of Education, and individual members of the State Board, represented by Anita L. Kelly, Montgomery, AL, Denise Boone Azar, Montgomery, AL, Juliana Faria Teixeira Dean, Montgomery, AL, Larry Eugene Craven, Montgomery, AL, Michael R. White, Montgomery, AL, Reginald Lee Sorrells, Montgomery, AL, Constance S. Barker, Montgomery, AL, Darnell D. Coley, Alabama Department of Education, Montgomery, AL, Whit Colvin, Montgomery, AL.
Defendant, Don Siegelman, Governor of the State of Alabama, represented by Anita L. Kelly, Montgomery, AL, Champ Lyons, Jr., Point Clear, AL, Edward Andrew Hosp, Maynard Cooper Gale, PC, Birmingham, AL, Michael R. White, Montgomery, AL, William H. Pryor, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, Alabama State House, Montgomery, AL, Constance S. Barker, Montgomery, AL, Amicus, United States of America, represented by Charles Redding Pitt, Birmingham, AL, Isabelle Katz Pinzler, Washington, DC, Jeanette Lim, Washington, DC, Jeremiah Glassman, Washington, DC, John R. Moore, Washington, DC, Kathleen S. Devine, Washington, DC, Kenneth Mines, Washington, DC, Kenneth E. Vines, Montgomery, AL, Pauline Ann Miller, Washington, DC, Stephen J. Curran, US Department of Justice, Employment Litigation Section Civil Rights Division, Washington, DC, Anita S. Hodgkiss, Washington, DC.
OPINION ON STATE-WIDE FACILITIES ISSUE
On April 20, 2006, in these local school-desegregation cases, this court wrote that, "The parties have submitted to the court a proposed consent decree on the state-wide facilities issue that is `fair, adequate, and reasonable,' . . . is not illegal or against public policy, . . . and thus meets the requirement of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Lee v. Lee County Bd. of Educ., 2006 WL 1041994 *1 (M.D. Ala. 2006) (citation omitted). The court therefore approved the consent decree. Id.
The 2006 consent decree contained the following provision regarding termination:
"33. The Court shall continue to retain jurisdiction of this matter to ensure full compliance with the terms and conditions of this decree until the date that is twenty-four (24) months after either (1) the beginning of implementation of the training by the State Department of Education or (2) the beginning of implementation of the collection, review and approval process by the State Department of Education, whichever shall last occur. This date shall be referred to as the `projected termination date.' The State Department of Education shall file a certification with the Court confirming the latter implementation date and thus establishing the projected termination date. On the projected termination date, this action shall be placed on the Court's administrative active docket. At any time prior to that date, any party may move the Court to reinstate the action to the active docket for resolution of any relevant issues and for the entry of appropriate relief. If no such motion is filed prior to the projected termination date, the statewide facilities issues portion of this action shall be automatically dismissed with prejudice, in its entirety, as of that date, and this decree shall be forever terminated."Id. at *9.
On April 13, 2009, all parties filed a joint notice of compliance stating that they "submit that the Decree has been complied with in full and that they are in agreement that the statewide facilities issue is due to be dismissed with prejudice." Based on the representations made by the parties in the notice as well as the representations made during an on-the-record conference on April 27, 2009 (including that a fairness hearing is not warranted because one was held prior to the approval of the consent decree), the court agrees that there has been full compliance with the consent decree and that the state-wide facilities issue should be dismissed.
An appropriate judgment will be issued.
JUDGMENT ON STATE-WIDE FACILITIES ISSUE
In accordance with the opinion entered this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follows:(1) The court DECLARES that there has been full compliance with the facilities consent decree entered on April 20, 2006.
(2) All outstanding orders and injunctions as they pertain to the state-wide facilities issue are dissolved.
(3) The state-wide facilities issue is dismissed with prejudice.
The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.