Moore et al v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board et al
Filing
1378
ORDER AND REASONS denying 1354 Motion to Stay; dismissing as moot 1356 Motion to Expedite; granting 1359 Motion for Relief related to the Court Compliance Officer's Interim Reports. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 3/16/2016. (ijg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOYCE MARIE MOORE, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 65-15556
TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
ET AL.
SECTION "B"(1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before
the
Court
are
defendant
Tangipahoa
Parish
School
Board’s (“the Board” or “TPSB”) “Motion for Stay” (Rec. Doc. 1354),
“Motion to Expedite Consideration for Stay” (Rec. Doc. 1356), and
“Motion for Relief” related to the Court Compliance Officer’s
(“CCO”) Interim Reports. (Rec. Doc. 1359). Plaintiffs filed no
responses to any of the above-referenced motions. However, the CCO
and
the
Chief
Desegregation
Implementation
Officer
(“CDIO”),
following this Court’s prior Order, filed memoranda in response to
the Motion for Stay. Rec. Docs. 1362, 1372. The TPSB then filed a
Reply to their responses. Rec. Doc. 1377. For the reasons outlined
below,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Expedite Consideration of
the Motion to Stay is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Stay is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Relief related to
the CCO’s reports is GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. Those reports (Rec.
Docs. 1349, 1357) shall hereby be filed under seal.
1
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The present motions derive from this Court’s Order and Reasons
denying the Board’s Motion for Approval of Appointment of Chief
Desegregation Officer. Rec. Doc. 1325. Instead of approving the
Board’s appointment of Lawrence Thompson as CDIO, this Court
ordered
the
appointment
of
Andrew
Jackson
as
CDIO
upon
the
recommendation of the CCO and with the support of Plaintiffs. Rec.
Doc. 1325 at 6-7. The Board appealed that Order and now seeks a
stay pending the decision of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.
The Board maintains that a stay of Jackson’s appointment is
necessary because it has been unable to comply with its obligations
under the desegregation order due to Jackson’s alleged failure to
report
to
work
and
the
CCO’s
alleged
interference
with
the
relationship between the Board and Jackson. Rec. Doc. 1354-1 at 1.
More specifically, the Board takes issue with the CCO’s position
that the CDIO is not a Board employee but, rather, solely under
the supervision of the CCO. Rec. Doc. 1354-1 at 2. Based on the
CCO’s stance with respect to the CDIO position, the Board claims
that it cannot fulfill its obligations and that irreparable harm
will continue to occur absent a stay. Rec. Doc. 1354-1 at 2-3.
The CCO and CDIO’s response memoranda present an altogether
different picture. They contend that Jackson is ready and willing
2
to fully function as the CDIO but claim he cannot due to the
Board’s failure to cooperate. Rec. Doc. 1362 at 3. However, they
maintain that Jackson has been working to the best of his ability,
despite the circumstances, at the direction of the CCO. See Rec.
Doc. 1362 at 14-15. Finally, the CCO and CDIO present evidence
that the Board continues to employ Lawrence Thompson and continues
to use him to fulfill the CDIO’s duties, allegedly demonstrating
the Board’s intent to defy this Court’s Order appointing Jackson.
See Rec. Docs. 1362, 1372.
II.
DISCUSSION
a. Motion for Stay
To obtain a stay pending appeal, a party must first move for
such a stay in the district court. Fed. R. App. P. 8(a). “A stay
is
not
a
matter
of
right,
even
if
irreparable
injury
might
otherwise result. It is instead an exercise of judicial discretion,
and the propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances
of the particular case.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Four factors
govern: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing
that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the
applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether
issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties
interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest
lies.” Id. at 434 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776
3
(1987)). The first two factors are the most critical. Nken, 556
U.S. at 434. The dispositive factor in this case is the second—
irreparable injury.
The Board provides two primary arguments supporting its claim
of irreparable injury. First, the Board argues that the current
positions of the CCO and the CDIO regarding the CDIO’s role are
making it impossible to implement the Court’s orders and to fulfill
its obligations under the desegregation Order. Secondly, they
argue that, even if Jackson were to show up to work and perform
his duties as required under the applicable job description, he
would be ineffective due to his lack of experience and training as
well as his bias as a relative of named Plaintiffs.
Defendant’s contention that it is currently unable to fulfill
its obligations under the desegregation order is perplexing. See
Rec. Doc. 1354-1 at 2 (arguing that a stay is necessary in order
for the “Board to continue to comply with its desegregation
obligations under the standing orders of this Court.”)
It appears
that the Board has simply maintained the status quo since this
Court ordered that Jackson assume the role of CDIO. The record
before the Court demonstrates that the Board has kept Lawrence
Thompson in the role of CDIO,1 meaning the Board is functioning in
See generally Rec. Docs. 1362, 1372. See also Rec. Doc. 1354-1 at 14-15
(“Thompson . . . has been performing the CDIO duties for months . . . . If
Pastor Jackson must assume the position, with the possibility that the
Court’s order appointing him will be reversed, the District must release Mr.
Thompson.”).
1
4
the exact capacity it desires. If that is causing irreparable
injury, then the Board is contradicting its own argument that
Thompson is the best candidate for the job. The Board also needs
to recall that it, along with Plaintiffs, initially proposed, and
the Court adopted by written order, the creation of the CDIO
position, along with tenure and conditions.
To the extent that the Board’s irreparable injury argument
rests on its inability to comply with this Court’s Order and
Reasons
appointing
Jackson
as
CDIO,
such
injury
is
easily
reparable. Both Jackson and the Board insist that they are ready
and willing to comply with that order. See Rec. Docs. 1354-1, 1362.
The problems and miscommunications between Jackson, the Board, and
the CCO seemingly revolve around the exact role of the CDIO
following his appointment order.
In the appointment order, the Court discussed the Board’s
motion to modify the CDIO’s job description. However, the Court
rejected the proposed modifications. Rec. Doc. 1325 at 5-6. While
the Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the CCO’s role
as one of the individuals to whom the CDIO reports, the Court did
not enlarge the CCO’s role with respect to supervision of the CDIO.
Notably, the Defendants are under the impression that the CCO is
treating the CDIO has his own employee, perhaps under the mistaken
belief that the Court adopted his proposed job description. See
Rec. Doc. 1286-6. However, the Court never adopted the CCO’s
5
revised job description, which was included within his annual
report
filed
in
July
2015.
The
only
active
job
description
regarding the CDIO position is the original one. Rec. Doc. 703-1
at 5-6. Under that job description, the CDIO is still required to
report to both the Superintendent of Schools and the CCO. Rec.
Doc. 703-1 at 5. Though both the Superintendent and the CCO play
a role in supervising the CDIO, this Court has not equivocated on
the issue of who employs the CDIO—the CDIO remains an employee of
the Tangipahoa Parish School Board. See Rec. Doc. 710 at 1.
Finally, the CDIO position remains a full-time position requiring
a full-time commitment. If any confusion remains about the CDIO’s
function, or if disputes arise concerning the CDIO’s conditions of
employment, the parties may submit those issues to the Court for
resolution.
The only manner in which this Court strayed from the original
job description was by appointing a CDIO, Jackson, who does not
possess
a
Masters
or
Doctorate
degree
in
Organizational
Leadership. Rec. Doc. 703-1 at 5. Despite this fact, the Court
found that Jackson could serve the Board appropriately. That
finding is supported by the CCO’s endorsement as well as the
Plaintiffs’ backing. Furthermore, Defendants cannot fairly claim
that Mr. Jackson is an ineffective CDIO, because he has not
received the opportunity to function fully in that role. The Board
is purely speculating about his ability to perform the job’s
6
functions. Speculation regarding potential ineffectiveness does
not demonstrate irreparable injury. The only point raised by the
Board that may be cause for concern is the relationship of Jackson
to the named Plaintiffs in this matter.
The Board’s Motion claims that Jackson was married to the
sister of Joyce Marie Moore, the named Plaintiff. Rec. Doc. 13541 at 22. Further, the Board claims, on information and belief,
that Jackson’s brother is married to Joyce Marie Moore, making
Jackson her brother-in-law. Rec. Doc. 1354-1 at 22. This is the
first the Court has heard of any such relationship. If, as alleged,
Jackson’s familial relationships truly raise legitimate questions
regarding
his
independence
and
impartiality
in
this
matter—
particularly in light of this Court’s appointment of him based on
the CCO’s claim that his independence would prove beneficial—then
the Board may file a motion for reconsideration of his appointment
under the appropriate Rule of Federal Civil Procedure. However,
based on the record and information presently before this Court,
the Board has failed to demonstrate that denial of a stay would
cause irreparable injury. Accordingly, the Motion for Stay must be
denied.
b. Motion for Relief Related to CCO’s Interim Reports
The Board filed the present Motion seeking a court order (1)
striking the subject reports from the Court’s docket and ordering
the reports be re-filed under seal or submitted to the Court and
7
parties without filing; and (2) striking all matters in the subject
reports regarding the CDIO and ordering that any such matter be
addressed in memoranda regarding the Motion to Stay. Rec. Doc.
1359-1 at 3. Alternatively, the Board urges the Court to provide
time for a response to those orders if they are to be adopted by
the Court or considered without striking information regarding the
CDIO. Rec. Doc. 1359-1 at 3.
This Court set the Motion for submission on March 9, 2016,
requiring any response memoranda to be filed no later than March
3, 2016. Rec. Doc. 1363. On March 3, 2016, the CCO filed a
supplemental brief concerning the Motion to Stay but made no
mention of the Motion for Relief related to his interim reports.
See Rec. Doc. 1371. Thus, the motion is deemed to be unopposed. It
further appearing to the Court that the motion has merit, the
interim reports shall be filed under seal. However, the Court, at
this point, sees no need to strike any portion of the reports
considering the Motion for Stay has been resolved without reliance
thereupon.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Stay is DENIED.
IT
IS
FURTHER
ORDERED
that
the
Motion
to
Expedite
Consideration of the Motion for Stay is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Relief related to
the CCO’s Interim Reports is GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. A motion for
reconsideration of this order (granting the motion for relief as
unopposed)
based
on
the
appropriate
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure, if any, must be filed within thirty (30) days of this
Order. The motion must be accompanied by opposition memoranda to
the original motion.
Because such a motion would not have been necessary had timely
opposition memoranda been filed, the costs incurred in connection
with the motion, including attorney's fees, will be assessed
against the party moving for reconsideration. See FED. R. CIV. P.
16, 83.
A statement of costs conforming to Local Rule 54.3 shall
be submitted by all parties desiring to be awarded costs and
attorney's fees no later than eight (8) days prior to the noticed
submission date of the motion for reconsideration.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 16th day of March, 2016.
____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?