Lee, et al v. Randolph Bd of Ed, et al

Filing 346

ORDER that the motion to vacate appointment 343 is denied with leave to re-file as motion for civil contempt as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/6/2012. (jg, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY T. LEE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Intervenor
and Amicus Curiae,
NATIONAL EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
RANDOLPH COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:70cv847-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
Based on the representations made on the record on
September 5, 2012, it is ORDERED that the motion to
vacate appointment (doc. no. 343) is denied with leave to
re-file as motion for civil contempt.
***

As

the

Eleventh

Circuit

Court

of

Appeals

has

observed,
“[Injunctions,
including
consent
decrees,] are enforced through the trial
court's civil contempt power. ... If the
plaintiff (the party obtaining the writ)
believes
that
the
defendant
(the
enjoined party) is failing to comply
with the decree's mandate, the plaintiff
moves the court to issue an order to
show cause why the defendant should not
be adjudged in civil contempt and
sanctioned. ... The plaintiff's motion
cites the injunctive provision at issue
and alleges that the defendant has
refused to obey its mandate. ... If
satisfied that the plaintiff's motion
states a case of non-compliance, the
court orders the defendant to show cause
why he should not be held in contempt
and schedules a hearing for that
purpose.
At the hearing, if the
plaintiff proves what he has alleged in
his motion for an order to show cause,
the court hears from the defendant. At
the end of the day, the court determines
whether the defendant has complied with
the injunctive provision at issue and,
if not, the sanction(s) necessary to
ensure compliance.”
Florida Ass’n for Retarded Citizens, Inc. v. Bush, 246
F.3d

1296,

1298

(11th

Cir.

2001)

(alterations

in

original) (quoting Reynolds v. Roberts, 207 F.3d 1288,
2

1298 (11th Cir. 2000)); see also Thomason v. Russell
Corp., 132 F.3d 632, 634 n. 4 (11th Cir. 1998) (same);
Wyatt v. Rogers, 92 F.3d 1074, 1078 n. 8 (11th Cir. 1996)
(same).
DONE, this the 6th day of September, 2012.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3