Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist.

344 F. Supp. 3d 1016
District Court, E.D. Arkansas·Decided September 25, 2018·No. No. 4:82-cv-866-DPM·Published

Opinion

D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge

Summary. The Jacksonville/North Pulaski School District asks the Court to declare its facilities and staffing unitary. JNPSD requests, in the alternative, an order holding that the District will be unitary if it implements its 2018 master facilities plan with some modifications. The Ellis intervenors oppose these requests. They say they're premature and, in any event, lack merit. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) governs JNPSD's motion. JNPSD descends, of course, from the Pulaski County Special School District. When Arkansas, the Districts, and the intervenors settled a large part of this case in 2013, their agreement contemplated JNPSD's creation. In due course, it came into being. The new District inherited all of PCSSD's remaining obligations under Plan 2000, the "particularization of federal law applicable to these parties." Knight v. Pulaski County Special School District , 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). The current question is whether JNPSD has, to the extent practicable, complied in good faith with its desegregation obligations on facilities and on staff. Freeman v. Pitts , 503 U.S. 467, 492, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992). Plan 2000's provisions on these two issues are in the margin. The Court agrees with the intervenors on a threshold point: JNPSD has the burden of proof. The District is right, though, to emphasize the special circumstances presented: JNPSD inherited Plan 2000's obligations; it is likewise entitled to lean on PCSSD's compliance with those obligations insofar as they concern the new District.

The Court has benefited from the testimony and exhibits received at the five-day trial in February. Nudged-one might truthfully say, pushed-by the Court, the parties covered much ground. The Court has also drawn freely on what it has learned in presiding over the detachment-related proceedings since 2013. Whether JNPSD has complied in good faith with these two parts of Plan 2000 turns, in large measure, on the credibility of the witnesses. The Court has made those calls. All material things considered, the Court concludes that, with the exception of incentives for certain teachers, JNPSD is unitary *1018in staffing; it is not unitary in facilities; but the District will be if it complies with the current master plan, as modified by this Order. To state a fiscally obvious but nonetheless important point, like districts across Arkansas, JNPSD will require continued substantial support from the State through partnership funding (or some substantially similar program) to meet its facilities needs.

Facilities.

Footnotes

Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist., 344 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (E.D. Ark. 2018).

344 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Freeman v. Pitts
503 U.S. 467 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Little Rock School District v. Arkansas
664 F.3d 738 (Eighth Circuit, 2011)
Humphries v. Pulaski County Special School District
580 F.3d 688 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
Knight v. Pulaski County Special School District
112 F.3d 953 (Eighth Circuit, 1997)