wwrrr?? PHA Wb. CT? IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RUBY HOLMES, As Next Friend of ORONDE HOLMES, A Minor l.R&.-92-5$8 vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate
DR. CLOYDE McKINLEY, In His Capacity as Superintendnet of Schools of the Little Rock School District
O.G. JACOVELLI, PATRICIA GEE, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL, and W.D. "BILL HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS COMPLAINT This case is to redress the Little Rock School Districts failure to properly advise the plaintiff and her minor son of their due process rights regarding an expulsion action of said minor plaintiff from one of the districts junior high schools. Plaintiff believes that because of the districts failure to advise them of their due process rights and because of his race, minor plaintiff is being denied the opportunity to receive an education as promised by the Constitution. 1. Jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1343. Relief is also sought pursuant to the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. 2. Plaintiff Ruby Holmes is the parent of minor plaintiff, Oronde Holmes. They reside within the Little Rock School Districtpr 11, y*!: V A
located in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Both are citizens of the United States of African descent. f V During the 1991- 92 school year, minor plaintiff attended to Southwest Junior High School in Little Rock. ij' O
R'i Schools. I "Il .(Hi Defendant Bernd is the Superintendent of the Little Rock Defendants, o.G. Jacovelli, Patricia Gee, John Moore, Dorsey Jackson, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, and W.D. "Bill Hamilton are members of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District and as such, they cetablieh and implement the policies for the operation of the Little Rock Public Schools. This is an action to enjoin the defendants from enforcing any policy, practice, custom or usage of denying written notice of expulsion to minor plaintiff. 5. Minor plaintiff. Oronde Holmes is a black male child 1 K A 3 . 4 . whose birthdate is October 2, 1977. He has performed as a good :A'' S-'Tl- I' i a SI student with an overall grade point average of "C" prior to the events addressed herein. On or about May 4, 1992, minor plaintiff was involved in an altercation with another student at Southwest 'ii Junior High School. As a result of said altercation, minor if i I' ft plaintiff received an expulsion recommendation from the school to the district's hearing officer. 6. On or about May 18, 1992, the district's hearing officer upheld the recommendation of the school. On same date, the hearing I 5.2) officer failed to advise plaintiff of her appeal rights to the t.'ir board. Instead, the hearing officer verbally recommended that Isif plaintiffs accept the recommendation of the school and in return he brat 2 s*1 S .c Uy Bist Ut Liulekoct HU. would request that the Board reinstate minor plaintiff for the < V'ri' t { 'ibV
1992-93 school year by placing him in Alternative School contingent ft upon his completing the district's "Changing Directions" course. f?' 7. At no time did the defendants give plaintiffs written notice to the effect that the oral decision of the hearing officer 1
.l on May is, 1992, would not be honored. 8. During the middle of June, 1992, plaintiff made inquiry of the district regarding the board action. The hearing officer at I ti 4 3 that time indicated that he had appeared before the board on her ii'f' behalf and that upon receipt of documentation that minor plaintiff had completed the changing directions course, there would be no further problem with his admission to classes in August of 1992. 'I 1 'I 9. On August 24, 1992 when plaintiff sought to enroll minor 'n plaintiff in school, she received verbal notice that minor 1 1 ) J . \ ft. 'Jif .V plaintiff could not return to school until the second semester of ^5' the 1992-93 school year. Si 'i', 'I!- 10. At some date unknown to plaintiffs, the defendants met to consider plaintiff's case. They did so without affording plaintiffs written notice of the action or an opportunity to be heard. Moreover, when they reached their adverse decision, the 1 1 I 1 l' S'I 5f defendants did not advise minor plaintiff of it until he appeared to enroll at Southwest Junior High School on August 24, 1992. 11. The foregoing action was taken by defendants against Ij ii minor plaintiff due to his race or color and pursuant to district policy in violation of his rights under the Equal Protection and I
if
S.s I w I i I 1. 24 k u. J 3I ('O' J 4 5' ii'iV ::t UyUlslUl Lillie koct n? I LAk HU. LUiyy^HUkH Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and under 42 U.S.C. If, Section 1983. Said action is also violative of the defendants' own IS ,w- rules and of the current plan of desegregation approved by the court. The plaintiff is suffering and stands to further suffer '.I'i I J ''f .t '4
J' educational and constitutional harm that is irreparable unless these concerns are promptly addressed and remedied by the Court. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Court advance this case on the docket, issue a temporary restraining order restraining defendants from denying access to education to minor plaintiff. ,1 '.1 pendente lite
and thereafter grant minor plaintiff preliminary and injunctive relief and such other appropriate equitable relief as j, the court may see fit to grant to remedy the violations alleged herein. The plaintiffs further pray for their costs herein including i'. 'll reasonable counsel fees. .'i n -I' H Respectfully submitted, nk if
I.' > u 3 I li JOHN W, WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 'I'. ? By: J
tfl W. Walker - iBar No^ 64046 I. 11 I, DATED: September 16, 1992 I''!, I, t'l dzholmes.ple Ilf J S: ii!r 'II,:# i* .5<' ?{ i! ) 4RECEIVED FILED NOV 19 im Office Of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU^.-S.^D^5J rrOJ.<'^"1,5^^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS J^OV 17 1992 WESTERN DIVISION CAftu LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEH. CLE.IK V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION TO SET ASIDE SUSPENSION AND FOR FURTHER RELIEF The Joshua Intervenors move the Court for an Order requesting the immediate reinstatement of class member, John Doe, as a student of the Little Rock School System. He proceeds herein through his mother, Mary Doe. The District is being provided the names of both persons. For cause, the movants respectfully show the Court that: 1. John Doe was eligible to attend Dunbar Jr. High School during the current school term. On September 2, 1992, minor Doe enrolled in the school for the purpose of attending classes. He attended classes for that day. 2. During the 7th period of the day, minor Doe was called to the office at which time he was given a "behavior report" wherein he was given notice by the District that he was being recommended for suspension from school. A copy of the report is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." The alleged misbehavior involved an out of school incident which happened during the summer. Adult Doe requested a hearing before the school system's hearing officer, Mr. Rudolph Howard, soon thereafter. The hearing 3.was held on November 2, 1992, almost two (2) months after school started. 4. At the hearing, it developed that the minor Doe was being removed from school on the basis of newspaper reports which related John Doe to alleged criminal behavior. The District obtained its information from newspaper reports. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer determined that the child could return to the school system but could not remain in Dunbar. The child was then assigned to Cloverdale Jr. High School. There was no writing to this effect. 5. John Doe and Mary Doe presented John Doe for admission to Cloverdale Jr. High on November 12, 1992. The principal, Gayle Bradford, told Mary Doe at she had not yet been advised by the Little Rock School District office to admit John Doe, but to call her the next day. Mary Doe called her the next day and was told the same thing. The same situation was repeated on November 16, 1992. 6. On November 17, 1992, Mary Doe went to the school for the purpose of effecting the promised school admission of her child to Cloverdale. She was again told that the School District office had not contacted the school approving the admission. 7. The defendants have effectively denied minor Doe an education since September, 1992. John Doe has been effectively t|i. deprived of equal protection and due process of the laws by his treatment herein including, inter alia: (1) a long term suspension recommendation based upon unrelated allegations away from school of pupil misbehavior
(2) improper notice and delay in hearing charges against him
(3) a school district policy of summary suspension for accused criminal activity
and (4) a policy of emergency removal from school of anyone suspected of engaging in criminal activity away from school. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court issue an immediate Order and injunction to require the defendant to allow the placement of minor Doe in Dunbar Jr. High School where he resides at his choice, in Cloverdale Jr. High School. Moreover, he prays, wherever he is assigned. that he be "made or, whole" for the alleged deprivations herein and afforded full and effective remedial relief for the time that he was required to stay out of school. Joshua further prays that the aforementioned behavior report be expunged from minor John Doe's record. Finally, Joshua asks for alternative appropriate and reasonable attorney's fees for this enforcement proceeding. Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mai
d, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this 4 day of November, 1992. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 c:Irsd.mot Jo: FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR'JBASTEflN district Arkansas EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEC 0 9 1992 CARLR. BRENTS, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PTRfNTTFFS. OEP. CLERK V. NO, LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION TO SET ASIDE SUSPENSION AND EXPULSION RECOMMENDATION AND FOR FURTHER RELIEF Joshua moves the Court for an Order requesting the immediate reinstatement of class member, Eugene Doe, as a student on one of the campuses of the Little Rock School District. He proceeds herein through his mother, Carolyn Doe. The District is being provided the names of the parties. For cause. the movants respectfully show the Court that: 1. Eugene Doe is a special education student who attended Mabelvale Junior High School. He has attended Mabelvale Junior High from the beginning of the 1992-93 school year until on or about November 30, 1992. 2. On or about November 30, 1992, the school officials gave Eugene Doe's sister. who also attends this school. a behavior report to be delivered to the parent wherein Adult Doe was given notice by the school that her son was being recommended for expulsion from school prior having the required hearing as required by PL 94-142. A copy of the report is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The alleged misbehavior involved an out of school incident which occurred away from school on or about November 23, 1992. Upon receipt of this report, Adult Doe was advised that her son was not to return to school. On or about December 2, 3. 1992, the school held a meeting with Adult Doe to discuss the incident that occurred on or about November 30, 1992 at the Cloverdale Shopping Center located at Chicot and Baseline Roads. 4. At this meeting it developed that Eugene Doe was being suspended from school and recommended for expulsion from the school on the basis of newspaper reports and rumors which related Eugene Doe to alleged criminal behavior. Adult Doe was not provided aihy' evidence that tied her son to the alleged incident. 5. On or about December 8, 1992, Adult Doe was summoned to another meeting with school officials at which time she reguested the reinstatement of her minor son to school. The principal, Mr. Wayne Marshaleck, refused to honor Adult Doe's request. During this meeting school officials attempted to justify the expulsion recommendation given Adult Doe on November 30, 1992 without providing all evidence to Adult Doe prior to the meeting as required by PL 94-142. Defendants LRSD took a statement from minor Doe and failed to notify Adult Doe that a statement had been taken and did not provide her with a copy of same. Adult Doe exercised her constitutional rights and requested that this meeting not proceed. 6. Plaintiffs Eugene and Carolyn Doe respectfully show the Court that Eugene Doe has been denied admission to school sinceNovember 30, 1992 because he is alleged to have been involved in a crime that occurred prior to school hours away from school property which has no relation to his basic right to an education. 7. Defendant LRSD has effectively denied Eugene Doe an education by their actions and deprived him of equal protection and due process of the laws by his treatment herein, inter alia: 1) an expulsion recommendation based upon unrelated allegations away from school of pupil misbehavior
2) improper notice of hearing charges against him
3) school district policy of summary suspension for accused criminal activity
and 4) a policy of a emergency removal from school of anyone suspected of engaging in criminal activity away from school. WHEREFORE, Joshua prays that the Court issue an immediate order and injunction to require the defendant LRSD to allow the reinstatement of minor Doe to Mabelvale Junior High School where he resides or ar his choice. a school whereby he may receive equitable educational opportunities. Moreover, minor Doe prays. wherever he is assigned, that he be "made whole" for the alleged deprivations herein and afforded full and effective remedial relief for the time that he was required to stay out of school. Joshua further prays that the aforementioned behavior report be expunged from minor Eugene Doe's record. Finally, Joshua asks for alternative appropriate and reasonable attorney's fees for this enforcement proceeding. Respectfully submitted.Jo: W. Walker Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of November, 1992. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 c:Irsd.mot J- Walker V RECEIVED 4PR 2 6 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT plaintiff VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS MOTION TO DISMISS For its Motion to Dismiss, the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") states
1. By motion dated October 22, 1992, the Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua") seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunction regarding class member Perry Doe. 2 . By motion dated November 17, 1992, Joshua seeks to set aside the suspension of and further relief regarding class member John Doe. 3 . By motion dated November 17, 1992, Joshua seeks to set aside the suspension of and further relief regarding another class member John Doe. 4 . By motion dated December 9, 1992, Joshua seeks to set aside the suspension and expulsion recommendation of and further relief regarding class member Eugene Doe. 5. Each of the above motions represents an effort by Joshua to litigate alleged constitutional or statutory deprivationsstemming from LRSD disciplinary actions taken against individual class members. 6. LRSD has provided by policy and practice an administrative forum for students, including Joshua class members, to seek redress of grievances. The policies and practices provided by LRSD comport with constitutional due process. 7. This case is not the proper forum for individual class members to seek redress of individual grievances arising from LRSD disciplinary actions. 8. If these or any other individual class members have suffered constitutional or statutory deprivations, they should be required to exhaust the administrative remedies provided by LRSD and to file separate actions against LRSD if they are not satisfied by any administrative relief fashioned by LRSD. 9. If Joshua is concerned that certain LRSD policies or practices somehow violate the desegregation plan, those concerns should be brought to the court's attention and. a hearing may be held to address those concerns. if necessary, If individual Joshua class members have evidence of violation of the a desegregation plan, Joshua may certainly call them as witnesses at that hearing. The court, however, should not fashion individual remedies for those class members, because such remedies would be beyond the scope of the court's function in this case, which is to monitor and ensure the implementation of the desegregation plan. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the defendants pray that the individual claims of Perry Doe, John Doe, John Doe and Eugene 2T Doe be dismissed, that Joshua be directed not to file further claims on behalf of individual class members and for all other just and proper relief. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 BY
y Barj And Ban iher Heller 81083 ew(T. Turner No. 91124 s CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 23rd day of April, 1993
Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 3< Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol St Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 BY: An 4 RECEIVE!) FILED U.S, Dior .ICT COURT., lAS'ERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY 7 1993 Office of Desegregation Moniioiing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION may 0 G 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their A attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., and move for an extension of time within which to file their response to Little Rock School District's Motion to Dismiss: In support of said motion, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit: 1. Additional time is needed for counsel to file briefs in support of motions addressed herein
2 . Opposing counsel will probably likewise need additional time to file its brief in support
3. This extension is requested. not for the purpose of delay, but in good faith in order that an appropriate response can be field
4. Opposing counsel has no objection to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time up to and including May 18, 1993 to file a response. Respectfully submitted.JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 . Walker, Bar #64046 ilin W. 640 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon all counsel of record this 6th day of May, 1993. l^prin W. Walkercr RECEIVED FILED U.S. D!ST: .ICT court, EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANS AS MJY 7 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION C may 0 S 1993 _c,f< LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their I attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., and move for an extension of time within which to file their response to Little Rock School District's Motion to Dismiss: In support of said motion, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit: 1. Additional time is needed for counsel to file briefs in support of motions addressed herein
2. Opposing counsel will probably likewise need additional time to file its brief in support
3. This extension is requested. not for the purpose of delay, but in good faith in order that an appropriate response can be field
4. Opposing counsel has no objection to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time up to and including May 18, 1993 to file a response. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 W. Walker, Bar #64046 >Jplin W. #640 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon all counsel of record this 6th day of May, 1993. W. WalkerIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER filed district court UnoTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY 1 4 1993 AHl il brisM iS, CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In response to the Little Rock School District's motion to dismiss the Joshua Intervenors' separate motions concerning Perry Doe, John Doe, John Doe, and Eugene Doe, the Joshua Intervenors have requested additional time to file a response. The Joshua Intervenors are granted an extension of time up to and including May 18, 1993, to file a response to the motion to dismiss. No further extensions will be allowed. DATED this Z3 day of May, 1993. UNITED STATES DISTR/C CT JUDGE i3y.. 7 ! THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR79(a) FRCP ON BY ---RECESV^O IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OEC f 7 93 ^Aonito^n^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION TO REQUIRE READMISSION OF CLASS MEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN EXPELLED FROM THE LITTLE ROCKK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN_ VIOLATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OWN RULES The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court to set a hearing for the purpose of determining whether the Little Rock School District has uniformily disregarded its rules regarding notice for students recommended for expulsion. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the Court that the rules of the District are set forth in a document entitled. "Secondary Students Rights and Responsibilities Handbook." The specific rules under which this motion is made appear on p. 27. The Joshua Intervenors further show the Court that on November 19, 1993, there was an incident at Forest Heights Jr. High School which resulted in a number of students being recommended for expulsion by the school principal. Mr. Richard Maple. The expulsion recommendation was considered by the District Hearing Officer, Dr. Linda Watson, and thereafter, was upheld. The Joshua Intervenors further show the Court that the District did not give the parents of the students recommended forexpulsion either notice by certified U.S. mail or by hand delivery of the recommendation for expulsion and the reasons for it. Nor did the District give these parents the date, hour and place that the School Board would consider and act upon the recommendation. Nor did the School District conduct a hearing within ten days of the suspension of the students
nor was a list of witnesses who would furnish information supporting the principal's recommendation made available to the students at least eight days before the ten day hearing period. The Joshua Intervenors contend that the District has failed to follow its own rules regarding due process and that because of that fact, the students are entitled to readmission immediately. The students who are affected by the November 19, 1993 suspension and expulsion are
1) Diccie Millen 2) Nicki Brown 3) Cynthia Taylor 4) Martiesha Monts 5) Shana Jackson 6) Charlotte Jackson 7) Tawana Cochran 8) Ruthie Day 9) Chiquita Burks
and 10) Tondalia McGee In addition to these students, Joshua respectfully moves the Court to readmitted all members of the class who have been denied due process as set forth herein and for appropriate relief by wayof remedial assistance and removal or extinguishment of the offenses for which due process was not given from the students' records. The authority for this motion is the desegregation plan itself and the Court's Orders which have been repeatedly set out that the district must follow its own rules or face the consequences of its own negligence or misconduct. lectfull submitted, 'John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 Mark Burnette - Bar No. 88078 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 Of Counsel: Michael Booker, Esq. 221 West Second Suite 424 Little Rock, AR 72201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this --- day of December, 1993. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, 3400 Capitol Towers P.A. Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell & Streett 401 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 504 Little Rock, AR Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim Humphries, Esq. Attorney General's Office 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, Ar 72201 n Walked received may 2 0 1993 Office of Desegresation Mcnitanng IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE SUSPENSION AND FOR FURTHER RELIEF The Joshua Intervenors have filed motions on behalf of (a) John Doe, a minor, by his mother, Jane Doe
(b) Perry Doe, by his parents, Robert and Lennie Storey
(c) Eugene Doe, by his mother. Carolyn Doe
and (d) John Doe, by his mother, Mary Doe, seeking to set aside their suspensions and/or expulsions and for further relief. The motion of Perry Doe for temporary and preliminary relief is now moot because several months after this motion was filed, the school district readmitted him to class. The relief being sought by all the "Does" is a declaration that the "emergency removal policy" is offensive (as set forth below) and that they are entitled to appropriate relief including reinstatement, makeup work, damages and such other relief as the court deems necessary to make them whole. The school district has filed a Motion without supporting brief or authority to dismiss. This Brief addresses the issues raised by Joshua and by the Little Rock School District. All of the "Does" are school age children of elementary or junior high age. All were affected and removed pursuant to the district's "emergency removal policy" which is found on page 22 ofthe handbook regarding student's rights and responsibilities. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The conduct alleged was that the Does had committed crimes and thus should be kept out of school until their matters were resolved within the criminal justice system. The issue is thus raised of the legitimacy, if not constitutionality, of the Little Rock School District's "emergency removal policy. II That policy is as follows
A building administrator may remove a student without an informal hearing if it is determined that the student's continued presence poses an immediate danger to persons or property or may substantially disrupt the school's Whenever a student is removed under orderly operation, these conditions. parent/guardian shall be notified when the informal hearing will be held. '~z This hearing will normally be provided within three (3) school days. The Desegregation Plan herein requires equitable treatment with respect to discipline based upon race. The Desegregation Plan clearly contemplates that policies which have adverse racial impact will not be tolerated by the court. As of November 23, 1992, ten pupils had been removed from school under the "emergency removal policy" within the 1992-93 school year. Nine of the ten a were African American students. All nine had periods of removal from school greater than two weeks. The one white male student was removed for a two week period. The "Does" argue that: (1) the "emergency removal policy" has a disparate impact upon members of their race
(2) the II emergency removal policy" denies them equal protection of the laws
and, (3) the "emergency removal policy" is a violation of the Desegregation Plan. The "Does" further argue that their treatment is much more extreme and harsh than that treatment accorded adults who are charged with crimes when thosecrimes occur away from the school system and/or are unrelated to their work in the school system. The same is true for youngsters who may be regarded as having psychological problems or other problems which are not directly related to the school system. In this respect, the "Does" argue that there is no state law provision or any other provision within the school district regulations which allow the school district to separate them from others of their age because the II Does II may be perceived to have, or have, problems which differ from those of some other children. Their treatment is thus arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the Desegregation Plan herein as well as the Constitution. Tinker v. De Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) , is the seminal case for the proposition that school children do not lose their rights as American citizens when they enter the public schoolhouse door. Tinker basically deals with whether school children may express First Amendment rights within the schoolhouse by a silent, nonviolent method such as the wearing of armbands in opposition to the Vietnam War. Tinker reaffirms, however, the premise that school children may not be removed from the school system for the expression of speech or other activity unless their conduct materially interferes with the requirement of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school citing Burnside v. Byars, 363 F2d 744, 749 (5th Cir. 1966). The essential question raised by Tinker and Burnside for purposes of our case is whether the suspensions herein relate appropriately to the discipline in the operation of the schools attended by, or from which the "Does" were rejected.There is no argument here that these students were disciplined for conduct that occurred within the school or that their presence after being arrested or having experienced problems unrelated to school, would interfere with the requirement of "appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." The district's entire rationale for their summary removal of these children is that they have problems outside of the school system which must be addressed before they may be admitted or readmitted to the school system. In this respect, they are treated differently from school district employees who experience arrests for misdemeanor offenses such as reckless driving, shoplifting, driving while under the influence, battery, possession of controlled substances. etc. All adults carry with them the presumption of innocence until proved guilty. There is no policy or practice which requires that school district employees similarly situated be suspended until their cases have been decided within the criminal justice system. Nor is there a requirement that a staff member who manifest psychological problems be removed until such time as that person no longer manifests such problems. The district's policy, therefore, treats school children much more harshly than it treats adults and it does so for no good reason. School children. therefore, can be said to lose their rights at the schoolhouse door when they are merely accused of unlawful or psychologically aberrant conduct. The Tinker commands of equal treatment are, therefore, violated. The challenge herein is not upon the authority of the district to either control student conduct within the schools or to adopt rules which are necessary for the maintenance of discipline amongthe students. Steier v. New York State Education Commission. 271 F2d 13 (2nd Cir. 1959) . We do urge that students are persons under the Constitution and possess fundamental rights which the State must respect. Dodd V, Rambis. 535 F.Supp. 23 (S.D. IN 1981). We do not urge, however, that school officials may not in a limited way regulate conduct of students when that conduct occurs away from school. If this were a case where children were using alcohol or drugs or fighting en route to or from school, we would concede the power of the school district to at least enact rules governing this conduct or misconduct. The only caveat would be that there has to be a direct relationship to a legitimate school purpose and have some reasonable time relationship to a school activity. Douglas v. Campbell, 89 Ark. 254,(1909) and Hunger V. Iowa High School Athletic Association, 197 N.W. 2d 555 (Iowa 1972) . One more recent case holds that a charge of possession of heroin is insufficient to warrant immediate suspension from school. Howard v. Clark. 299 N.Y.S. 2d 65 1969. The basic point we make is that while youngsters have not had an adjudication of guilt on a charge imposed against them, they should not be punished by a public school system by their removal from the educational environment absent compelling reasons. The reasons of the Little Rock School District in the cases at bar are not compelling. The justification for the "emergency removal provision" is set forth in a memorandum to the Board of Directors dated March 11, 1991. See Exhibit "A" hereto. The justification facially denies education to children who are convicted of minor offenses. Although they may be readmitted to school, albeit, without makeupwork. In order to obtain makeup work, they must first be found innocent. What is the logic of such a policy? What end does it accomplish? Such a policy not only has racial impact, but is not rooted in logic or reason, either. It denigrates the concept of equity which is inherent in the Desegregation Plan. It cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. More heinous is the policy of removing children who have psychological problems. This may include one or more of the "Does" herein. In any case, the "Does" and other students are not put on notice of what conduct is proscribed by this policy. Moreover, the policy allows school officials the unfettered discretion to remove anyone from school by merely attaching a label to their away from campus conduct or circumstances. Where all of the children who are adversely affected are basically of one race, as here, the practice is suspect. See Exhibit "B" hereto. CONCLUSION The challenged practices violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Desegregation Plan as well. We submit that it is also void because it is so vague, especially to school children of tender age and lack of familiarity with adult expectations. Moreover, there is no compelling State interest which supports the removal of children from school for unschool related activity or psychological conditions unless there is a direct connection to the maintenance of discipline or the safety and well being of the students and staffs within the school environment. Merely providing a hearing to such persons as the "Does" is insufficient to meet theobjections of the "Does" that they are entitled, absent compelling circumstances and proof which is directly related to the school environment, to be eligible to remain on the same footing as others of their same age, grade and other similar circumstance. The "emergency removal policy" of the district, which is vague and unjustifiable, has been applied to these African American students in a way which offends the Constitution, the Plan, and a basic sense of fairness. It must be eliminated and the "Does" must be given appropriate relief including damages. education and other attention that the court will define in order to allow them to be compensated for the harm which they have suffered as a result of the "emergency removal policy." Respectfully submitted. By: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (5 ) 3-^4-3758 W. Walker 72206CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of 1993. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell and Streett 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 J Walker LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 11, 1991 To: Board of Directors From: iy Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Subject: Interpretation of Emergency Removal Provisions in Secondary Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook The emergency removal provision (see p. 22) of the Secondary student Rights and Reponsibilities Handbook has been used in a number of cases (a total of 42 during the first semestejr) in which students or former students committed criminal offenses away from school. This practice has resulted in inquiries by various court system representatives and newspaper reporters concerning the legality of removing students from school prior to a decision on their guilt or innocence. To reduce the likelihood of being out-of-compliance with due process requirements, we plan to implement the following '' interim measures on emergency removal of students who have been charged with criminal offenses: 1. Students who have been charged with crimes of violence/bodily harm (i.e., robbery, assault and battery) will not be permitted to attend school until a court hearing is held. A student so charged who is not incarcerated will be contacted within three days to arrange for a meeting at which the student will be questioned by school officials, suspended from school and informed of his/her right to a hearing. 2, Students who have been charged with non-violent crimes (i.e., theft, shop-lifting) must meet With their principal to arrange conditions under which continued attendance might be permitted. 3. Students who have been charged with use, possession, or distribution/sale of drugs or alcohol will be disciplined in accordance with Rule 26 under Category 3 offenses. In cases of students who are removed from school and subsequently are found to be innocent, make-up work will be allowed for days missed from school. PLAINTIFFS exhibitIn addition to these interim measures we are forwarding a copy of this memorandum to Chris Heller to request him to " review this matter and advise us as to what additional actions should be taken. RS: nr cc: IChris Heller Rudolph Howard t r I
f f I ( I @ is j 1 I O froM J)r, 8<r/i//7, 3i>l>^- K^li>ll)}\ 2-A^er'^EA/Ai^ PtMOx/Di 5 ZC'// re-ifiOJsE -^tD -jbe. (lo) , ai/i&k. P>laiL UJHc Doi'> f re^u/^i I /^Fi. I<^ IJI'tpaSA^ iilio/}Q^ 4c/>/' lUi'''., //le. tif v sJwol l^lc Cn llE>iV'rJ<r, fr'SEA/b r 7 a A- /o T.e/-id\jefL by' {'he, ]^<!rli''. Ityl C /jF^.^ 3 ,h.U., lOZ IS fOJ' 'r'\ /l^l-A re^soy^ Of/J. r---- Pwj bs, PcefJi.^ Jose^l:.l_ /3rA P/MC-Po ,5c,
^ _____6aj\,._ ______/iM_ I J ]//' '-/M, Di(' -. P^!- ^F. OliVC Pi-li-l 6L I------ --------------- 1) ly<~./\/u/lr'<:/j e_r t t S.''-iir'P. y-li.li .i(.,lE\.i seD,D R.e.nSo'i/ SLiiTiS ___C.e''''P''il ____J'j'>.i_r_ C.E'\il>-iil _____D3M FM Piitbaltyt^l b'J lie.u-^us^i-j Feu^ fibusS f>i:iC.,fhve' M btn- StiS/i'I.^ . Piyc-ljoli!!^ I (Ji I ^.Z 'it'j 1...A '-J M__ ____73/I ____Adz^____ ..MA .. /3/1 DM__ uM ?D ibr/J aht & iilio/fi.. Tta bt. it^hi ra yiLc Ct'KtlfJfil ---
' I , fitA.'/zer-guBOagu/ 'ItbpL. Dne^ljlMb M ZeMji,.l fcntji LiM of Saiyu ^loJi iffL. It '...-/I J .i. Psyc/lfllcjiCrt I K^'i-^llejL o-i" Ejbt- Batt l>u^ plaintiffs! received DEC 2 2 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Olfice of Desegregation Monitoring EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS RESPONSE OF LRSD TO MOTION TO REQUIRE READMISSION OF CLASS MEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN EXPELLED FROM THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN VIOLATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OWN RULES The Little Rock School District ("LRSD") or ("District"), for its response to the Motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors, states: The LRSD denies each and every allegation contained in the Motion not specifically admitted herein. Further, the LRSD denies that it has violated its own rules and does hereby submit that no hearing is necessary to determine whether the District has disregarded its rules. Based upon reasonable information and belief, the students identified in the pleading have no standing to serve as class members as asserted. have no injuries or damages against the District and can state no cause of action against the District as alleged therein. Namely, a hearing before the LRSD Board of Directors to raise these and other issues on behalf of these students was set for Thursday, December 16, 1993, and was scheduled lnd-puJ.fC8to begin after the regular board meeting. Further, the District learned on the evening of Wednesday, December 15, 1993, that the students would be represented by Attorney John Walker at the hearing on Thursday, December 16. On Thursday, December 16, negotiations occurred back and forth between the representatives of the District and Mr. Walker. Prior to the hearings, a negotiated settlement was reached and all issues were resolved in accordance with the agreeme: among and between the parties. In light of that negotiated resolution, the students were not expelled from the LRSD
any alleged rule violations were either waived or cured
it was agreed that the students would remain suspended through the end of the first semester, but would be allowed to take semester examinations and return to school at the beginning of the second semester. The instant Motion was apparently filed prior to the resolution reached by the parties. However, it was filed subsequent to the setting of the Board hearing. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that these students have no cause of action against the District, have no injuries or damages for which relief can be granted. have no standing to represent the alleged class members and are not in need of any hearing as requested in the Motion. Consequently, the Motion should. and must. be denied as being moot. improper for other reasons, or both. Finally, since none of the named students have grounds for any relief and are not proper representatives of any class, the request on behalf of John Doe students cannot be Jrtd-pul.fw 2considered or acted upon at this juncture. Without proper complaining parties, there exists no justiciable controversy. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District prays that the Motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors be denied as set forth herein and for other reasons
that the District be granted its costs, expenses and attorney's fees incurred herein
and all other legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Plaintiff LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT < Jerry L. Malone Bar ID No. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Response has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this ,^/<^^day of December, 1993. Jeirrrryy L. Malone - Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Irad-pul.K* 3 J Mr. Mark Burnett JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim Humphries, Esq. Attorney General's Office 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone Ind-puJ.re* 4 RECa 7 C/r* ?' JUL 2 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Ofice 0? Desegrc-gaiiofi ^k-nSoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED LAoTER^ GTISr.-T
RI*C-''T iC -AUORUUkRRATTk
'.oTRICT ARKANSAS 3 0 1993 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court are a number of motions filed by the Joshua Intervenors concerning the suspension of students and the Little Rock School District's failure to reinstate or readmit those students. The motions were not accompanied by briefs in support. The Little Rock School District ("LRSD") did not file vpn responses to the motions. Instead, it filed a motion to dismiss. also without accompanying brief, to which the Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua") responded. In its motion to dismiss, the LRSD contends that this case is not the proper forum in which to litigate individual claims arising from LRSD disciplinary actions. It states the LRSD has an administrative forum for addressing such grievances and that the Court's function in this case is not to fashion individual remedies but to monitor and ensure the implementation of the parties' desegregation plans. In response. Joshua attacks the LRSD's emergency removal policy. Joshua claims that because the emergency removal policy has a disparate impact upon black students it is in violation of the desegregation plan. Upon review of the motions and Joshua's response, the Court finds that the Joshua motions should be denied. The Court finds that this case is not the proper forum for the individual claims of John Doe, John Doe, Eugene Doe, and Perry Doe. If Joshua believes that LRSD policies violate the desegregation plan, those concerns should be brought to the Court but only after they make a good faith effort to resolve their differences without the intervention of the Court. This dispute over the LRSD's emergency removal policy appears to be one that could be resolved by a good faith effort at communication and cooperation. The Court refers the parties to its Order of May 21, 1993, in which it directed the parties to make a good faith effort to resolve those matters that do not, by their nature, require Court intervention or approval. The parties are further reminded that they are bound by the Local Rules of the court in this case just as they are in any other case. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion of the LRSD [doc. 1811] is granted
the Joshua motions [docs. 1713, 1714, 1722, 1758] are denied. DATED this ^X^^day of , 1993. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2- OOMPLIANCE rule 58 ON BY mop L^CE WITH IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No, 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court are a number of motions which the Court now addresses: (1) motion by the Joshua intervenors ("Joshua") for ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits. follow the incentive school children vs. a [doc.#1929]
(2) motion by Joshua requesting the Court to address certain issues regarding the budget process of the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") [doc.#1949]
(3) motion by Joshua to require the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD in violation of the LRSD's own rules [doc.#2051]
and (4) motion by the LRSD for approval of school construction at Jefferson Elementary [doc.#2090]. I. Joshua moves for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits. follow the incentive school children [doc.#1929]. Joshua also requests the Court to address the following issues regarding the budget process of the LRSD [doc.#1949]: (1) whether the LRSD is required to double fund the incentive schools
(2) whether, pursuant to the double funding, the LRSD is required to provide scholarship incentives and awards to students who attend or have attended those schools since the settlement plan
(3) whether the LRSD is required to provide training and educational opportunities related to potential placement in teaching positions in the LRSD to black parents and others who are placed as aides
(4) whether incentive school personnel who are required to work extended day and extended year programs are entitled to extra compensation for that extra work
and (5) whether the Ish children are entitled to receive all of their promised incentive school benefits when they attend King Elementary School. The Court denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits. follow the incentive school children. Joshua's motion was filed on August 2, 1993. Ten days after filing the motion, at the August 12, 1993 hearing on the LRSD budget, counsel for Joshua requested that instead of a hearing on this matter, the parties should first be "directed to sit and try to work this out. tl Transcript, at 10. Joshua went on to state that it is important for Joshua to sit with the school district and in good faith try to resolve these issues without judicial intervention. Id. at 11. The Court agrees and will defer addressing the matters raised in Joshua's motion until such time as -2-the record reflects that the parties have unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the matter without court intervention. The Court likewise denies without prejudice Joshua's motion that the Court address certain issues regarding the budget process of the LRSD. The Court is currently addressing the budget process of the LRSD in an ongoing manner and will continue to do so on its own terms or that of the Eighth Circuit. Moreover, Joshua's motion consists of mere one and a quarter pages (four complete a sentences) and simply does not set forth sufficient grounds for granting the requested relief. II. Joshua moves for an order requiring the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD in violation of the LRSD's own rules [doc.#2051], Joshua states that the LRSD "did not give the parents of the students recommended for expulsion either notice by certified U.S, mail or by hand delivery of the recommendation for expulsion and the reasons for it. Nor did the district give these parents the date, hour and place that the school board would consider and act upon the recommendation. Nor did the school district conduct a hearing within ten days of the suspension of the students
nor was a list of witnesses who would furnish information supporting the principal's recommendation made available to the students at least forty-eight days before the ten day hearing period." Joshua contends that the LRSD has failed to follow its own rules regarding due process and that because of that -3-fact, ths students ars entitled to readmission immediately. As authority for this motion, Joshua cites this Court's previous orders and the desegregation plan. The LRSD has responded to this motion by asserting that the matter is now moot. Specifically, the LRSD states that on December IS, 1993, representatives of the LRSD and counsel for Joshua reached a negotiated settlement and all issues were resolved in accordance with the agreement among arid between the parties. In this regard, the LRSD states that "the students were not expelled from the LRSD
any alleged rule violations were either waived or cured
it was agreed that the students would remain suspended through the end of the first semester, but would be allowed to take semester examinations and return to school at the beginning of the second semester." The LRSD states that the motion now before the Court apparently was filed prior to the settlement agreement. In light of the settlement agreement apparently reached between the parties, the Court finds that Joshua's motion for an order requiring the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD in violation of the LRSD's own rules should be and hereby is denied as moot. Joshua may refile the motion if the matter is not moot, or if new and relevant circumstances have arisen that would give rise to any relief. III. The LRSD has filed motion for approval of school a construction at Jefferson Elementary [doc.#2090]. By order dated -4'April 29, 1993 , the Court denied the request for approval of construction at Jefferson, stating that the LRSD may repetition the Court for approval of the Jefferson construction after the attendance zones for the King Interdistrict school are firm and court-approved. In addition, the Court requested the following information: the current capacity of Jefferson
any changes in school capacity that will result from the proposed construction
and the precise number of portable buildings that will remain at the school as a result of the proposed construction. The LRSD has provided the requested information in the motion now before the Court. Having carefully reviewed the information, the Court finds that LRSD's motion for approval of school construction at Jefferson Elementary should be and hereby is granted. However, any new space generated by the construction must be dedicated to the use described in LRSD's motion. Any alternative use would have to be approved by the Court. IV. In sum, the Court denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits, follow the incentive school children, denies without prejudice Joshua's motion that the Court address certain issues regarding the budget process of the LRSD, denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for an order requiring the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD, and grants the -5-LRSD's motion for approval of school construction at Jefferson Elementary, IT IS SO ORDERED this day of April 1994. STATES dist: 21^ jlSTSlCT JUDGE -6-
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.

<dcterms_creator>United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)</dcterms_creator>