Moore et al v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board et al
Filing
1439
ORDER DENYING 1382 Motion for Reconsideration as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 10/18/2016. (mmv)
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 & RESPONSE TO CIRCUIT PANEL
Before the Court is a “Motion for Relief from Order Appointing
Chief Desegregation Implementation Officer” under Rule 60(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed by the Tangipahoa
Parish School Board (“Defendant”). Defendant also filed a “Motion
for Indicative Ruling” under Rule 62.1(a)(3) asking this Court to
state that it would grant the above-referenced motion if the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit were to remand the
pending appeal for that purpose. Rec. Doc. 1384. On June 22, 2016,
this Court granted the motion for an indicative ruling, having
found
that
a
substantial
issue
appeared
to
exist,
and
simultaneously held in abeyance the motion for relief under Rule
60(b). Rec. Doc. 1409. On September 7, 2016 the Fifth Circuit
remanded and authorized this Court to rule on the subject motions
to determine if the appointed Chief Desegregation Implementation
Officer (“CDIO”), Andrew Jackson, has an actual or potential
conflict of interest that would prohibit him from holding that
office.
Rec.
Doc.
1428
at
2.
The
1
Circuit
panel
also
sought
additional findings to explain the selection of the current CDIO
over the one formerly proposed by Defendant. For the reasons
outlined below,
IT
IS
ORDERED
that
Defendant’s
motion
for
relief
and
reconsideration relative to the CDIO position is DENIED.
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The
parties
first
sought
the
establishment
of
the
CDIO
position in 2008 to accomplish “the internal task of overseeing
implementation of [the] court’s orders . . . .” Rec. Doc. 704 at
1. This Court granted the parties’ joint motion to create the
position and noted that the CDIO “shall be under the direct
supervision of the superintende[nt] of schools and the court’s
compliance officer [“CCO”]. . . .” Rec. Doc. 710 at 1. The Order
further explained that the CDIO would coordinate and oversee all
aspects of the implementation of the court’s orders on a day-today basis within the school system and that it would be a fulltime, year-round position. Id.
Defendant sought approval from the Court for each new CDIO
appointment, even though no order explicitly requires approval
from either the Court or Plaintiffs. See Rec. Doc. 1308-1 at 1-2.
In 2015, when the previous CDIO, Lionel Jackson, informed Defendant
that he intended to remain on sick leave until he retired at the
end of the year, Defendant assigned the CDIO’s duties to Lawrence
Thompson. Id. at 2. In July 2015, as part of his annual report,
2
however, the CCO recommended Andrew Jackson for the position. Rec.
Doc. 1286 at 18. In motions filed in August 2015, Defendant moved
for the elimination of the CDIO position, approval of a revised
job description for the CDIO, or, alternatively, approval for the
appointment of Lawrence Thompson as CDIO. Rec. Docs. 1308, 1309.
In response, Plaintiffs urged the Court to appoint Andrew Jackson
as CDIO, per the recommendation of the CCO, because Mr. Thompson
did not have the support of the African American community. Rec.
Doc.
1316
at
1-2.
On
December
3,
2015,
this
Court
denied
Defendant’s motions to eliminate the CDIO’s position and to modify
the CDIO’s job description. Rec. Doc. 1325 at 5-6. In the same
Order, the Court denied the appointment of Mr. Thompson and ordered
the appointment of Andrew Jackson, noting that the appointment of
a person who is a not a former employee of the school system “would
bring a level of independence and impartiality that would better
facilitate achieving unitary status, which is the ultimate and
primary goal.” Id. at 7.
Defendant then appealed that Order and Reasons on December
30, 2016. Rec. Doc. 1336. Following the Notice of Appeal, Defendant
filed a motion for a stay of the order appointing Andrew Jackson
pending the appeal, which this Court denied. Rec. Docs. 1378, 1354.
It was in that motion, filed on February 17, 2016, that Defendant
first raised the issue of Jackson’s potential conflict of interest
based upon his familial relationships—approximately seven months
3
after Defendant was first notified of the CCO’s recommendation of
Andrew Jackson for the position. See Rec. Docs. 1286, 1354-1.
The Order and Reasons denying the motion for a stay noted
that the alleged familial relationship between Andrew Jackson and
the named Plaintiffs in this matter could be a cause for concern.
Rec. Doc. 1378 at 7. Accordingly, the Court further stated that
Defendant could file a motion for reconsideration of Jackson’s
appointment if his familial relationships truly raised questions
about his independence and impartiality. Id. Defendant thereafter
filed its motion for relief under Rule 60(b). Rec. Doc. 1382.
Plaintiffs timely filed an opposition memorandum. Rec. Doc. 1390.
In its original motion, Defendant argued that the Court should
reverse its decision appointing Jackson because (1) he has a
conflict of interest based on a close familial relationship with
the named plaintiffs (by what Defendant questionably claimed was
newly-obtained evidence); (2) he has a conflict of interest due to
his leadership role in the Ministerial Alliance, which took a
significant interest in the case; (3) he lacks the requisite skills
and education; and (4) his relationship with the CCO prevents him
from properly fulfilling his duties. Rec. Doc. 1382-2 at 12-18.
However, in our June 22, 2016 Order, this Court found that the
latter three arguments were not properly before the Court. Rec.
Doc. 1409 at 7. Nonetheless, the first argument was found to be
sufficient grounds for reconsideration of the appointment under
4
Rule 60(b)(2) (stating that a court may relieve a party from an
order based upon “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered” earlier”). Id. at 8.
Given the pending appeal, however, this Court merely determined
that there was a substantial issue under Rule 62.1 and therefore
granted Defendant’s motion for an indicative ruling. Id. at 1, 9.
On September 7, 2016, the Fifth Circuit remanded “for the
limited purpose of allowing the district court to rule on the
matter identified in its indicative order” and further instructed
this Court to “make additional findings to explain its appointment
of Mr. Jackson instead of Mr. Thompson.” Rec. Doc. 1428 at 2. This
Court promptly ordered supplemental memoranda from the parties.
Rec. Doc. 1429. The parties timely filed supplemental responses.
See Rec. Docs. 1431, 1432, 1433.
II.
THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
In the CCO’s 2015 annual report, he explained that Andrew
Jackson is well known in the community, is an established pastor,
has
a
bachelor’s
president
and
degree
principal
in
of
criminal
Reynolds
justice,
Institute
and
(a
served
as
residential
facility for minors who had been adjudicated delinquent). Rec.
Doc. 1286 at 10. Plus, in his position at Reynolds, the CCO noted
that
Andrew
Jackson
regularly
interacted
with
the
Tangipahoa
Parish School System, from which the institute directly received
5
funds. Id.1 Mr. Jackson’s resume was also attached to the report.
Rec. Doc. 1286-5.
In their original motion, Defendant opposed Mr. Jackson’s
appointment and argued that he verbally confirmed his previous
marriage to Catherine Moore (the alleged daughter of M.C. Moore
and sister of named class representative Joyce Marie Moore), with
whom he has one child. Id. at 8, 12. Defendant also claimed that
it had obtained evidence of a certificate of marriage between one
Jessie Jackson, Jr. (allegedly a relation to Andrew Jackson) and
Joyce Marie Moore (the daughter of M.C. Moore and on whose behalf
he
filed
suit).
Rec.
Doc.
1382-2
at
8
n.
26.
According
to
Defendant, Andrew Jackson would neither confirm nor deny the
relationship. Id.
In response, Plaintiffs noted that Mr. Jackson has never been
employed
by
Defendant
and
accordingly
argued
that
“as
an
independent reviewer of facts and complaints against the board, he
would be unbiased.” Rec. Doc. 1316 at 1. Mr. Thompson, on the other
hand, is a retired administrator, principal, coach, and teacher,
who purportedly does not have the support of the African American
community. Id. at 2.
In “Plaintiffs’ Memorandum Regarding the Appointment of the
Chief Desegregation Implementation Officer,” filed in September
In this report, the CCO also recommended modifications to the CDIO’s job
description. Rec. Doc. 1286 at 18-19. The Court did not adopt these changes.
1
6
2016, Plaintiffs state that Defendant’s claims of a conflict are
a
“pretext”
and
that
Defendant
is
opposing
Andrew
Jackson’s
appointment because he, unlike their proposed candidate, would not
be under their control. Rec. Doc. 1432 at 3. Plaintiffs admit that
Andrew Jackson was married to Catherine Moore from 1969 to 1975,
at which time they divorced. Id. Plaintiffs nevertheless contest
Defendant’s assertion that Andrew Jackson is the brother of Jessie
Jackson, Jr.2
Defendant responds by noting that the CDIO is supposed to
implement the Board’s obligations on its behalf and is therefore
an employee of Defendant who “report[s] to both the Superintendent
and the CCO.” Rec. Doc. 1433 at 6 n. 28 (citing Rec. Doc. 1378 at
6). In this role, Defendant argues that the CDIO must “receive
confidential
and
privileged
information
necessary
to
the
performance of his duties” and that he must “be a trusted employee
committed to work as an advocate of the Board’s implementation of
its obligations . . . .” Id. at 6. Further, even though Andrew
Jackson and Catherine Moore divorced in 1975, they have a daughter
together who is the niece and granddaughter of the respective
Plaintiffs,
and
Defendant
argues,
in
a
vague
and
conclusory
fashion, that Mr. Jackson could be influenced by his daughter or
his ties to his daughter’s family. Id. at 7. Defendant also claims
Specifically, Plaintiffs state that “defendants allege that Andrew Jackson
has a brother, Jesse [sic] Jackson, allegedly married to a Moore descendant.
The information is erroneous.” Rec. Doc. 1432 at 3.
2
7
that Plaintiffs have not provided any factual documentation to
rebut the conclusory assertion that Andrew Jackson is related to
Jessie Jackson, Jr. Id. at 8. Notably absent since Jackson’s
service as CDIO are any complaints
from Defendant
about his
impartiality in decision making or service.
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the court may
relieve a party from an order if, among other reasons, there is
“newly discovered evidence, that with reasonable diligence, could
not have been discovered” at an earlier time. FED. R. CIV. P.
60(b)(2).
In
this
case,
the
Board
presents
newly-discovered
evidence that allegedly shows Jackson’s relationship to the named
plaintiffs. That evidence consists of (1) Jackson’s confirmation
of his previous marriage to Catherine Moore (the daughter of named
plaintiff M.C. Moore), with whom he has a child; and (2) an alleged
relationship between Andrew Jackson and Jessie Jackson, Jr., who
was purportedly married to Joyce Marie Moore (the daughter of named
plaintiff M.C. Moore and on whose behalf he filed suit). Rec. Doc.
1382.
In support of their motion for reconsideration, Defendant
cites to SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. 180
(1963) for the proposition that Mr. Jackson should not be appointed
simply because of the “appearance of impropriety that arises from
the established familial ties with the Plaintiffs . . . .” Rec.
8
Doc. 1433 at 6. In Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., the Supreme
Court noted that conflicts of interest must be avoided not simply
because there may be actual violations of trust relations, but
also to remove any temptation to violate them. 375 U.S. at n. 50.
Defendant references that “an impairment of impartial judgment can
occur in even the most well-meaning men when their personal
economic interests are affected by the business they transact . .
. .” Rec. Doc. 1382-2 at 11 (quoting United States v. Miss. Valley
Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 549 (1951)).
Defendant generally contends that Jackson’s family ties to
the plaintiffs in this matter present unfairness because he is in
a position of trust with the opposing party in “litigation adverse
to his [adult] daughter’s immediate family[’s] interests.” Rec.
Doc. 1382-2 at 12. Notably, though, Defendant does not explain the
parameters
of
this
supposed
“position
of
trust”
nor
provide
specifics as to how Jackson’s “position of trust” has been violated
or could actually or foreseeably harm them in this litigation. In
other words, this Court is wholly unaware of how Mr. Jackson’s
alleged, and not proven, conflict of interest could foreseeably
result in any temptation to violate a supposed trust relationship
with Defendant. The purpose of this litigation is to desegregate
the schools in the Tangipahoa Parish School System and the primary
roles of the CCO and CDIO are, and should be, to ensure this
desegregation.
9
It appears that Andrew Jackson was once married to Catherine
Moore, who is a member of a named plaintiff’s immediate family.
However, they were married from 1969 to 1975, a period of 6 years
more than 40 years ago. Even though they had a child, this Court
does not find that Mr. Jackson’s daughter’s mother’s relationship
with the named plaintiffs creates a real or potential conflict of
interest for Mr. Jackson or even that it reasonably creates the
appearance of impropriety.3
As to another conclusory allegation, there is evidence that
a man named Jessie Jackson, Jr. was at one time married to Joyce
Marie Moore (see Rec. Doc. 1382-1 at 11-13), but there is no
evidence that Jessie Jackson, Jr. is in any way related to Andrew
Jackson. To the contrary, Plaintiffs specifically argue that there
is no such relation.
Rec. Doc. 1432 at 3. Without evidence
that these two individuals are actually related, this Court cannot
find that there is a relationship that could reasonably implicate
a conflict of interest.
In the joint motion for the creation of the CDIO, the parties
explained that the CDIO’s role was to “begin the internal task of
overseeing implementation of [the] court’s orders and ensuring
In fact, it would likely create the appearance of propriety. To an outsider,
and to this Court, it would seem as though the interests of the CDIO and
Plaintiffs should often align, because both are primarily seeking the
desegregation of the school system. As later noted in this Order, in the
joint motion to create the CDIO, the parties explained that his/her purpose
was to “demonstrate to the court and to those on whose behalf the instant
lawsuit was filed its good faith commitment to” the court’s orders and the
law. Rec. Doc. 704 at 1 (emphasis added).
3
10
compliance with applicable laws and constitutional mandates.” Rec.
Doc. 704 at 1. He or she was to “oversee all aspects of the
implementation of the court’s orders, including . . . the provision
of ongoing reports to the court’s compliance officer, and that
such person be under the direct supervision of the superintendent
of schools, and the court’s compliance officer and be responsible
to provide all requested reports and information to the court’s
compliance officer.” Id. at 2. The Court’s Order specifically
stated that the CDIO “shall be under the direct supervision of the
superintende[nt] of schools and the court’s compliance officer .
. . .” Rec. Doc. 710 at 1 (emphasis added). Thus, from the
beginning, the CDIO has answered to both Defendant and the CCO.
Even though the CDIO is employed by Defendant, his or her loyalties
rest upon implementing lawful compliance with Court orders and
law, designed to achieve unitary status for this school system.
The parties explicitly stated that the purpose of the CDIO was to
“demonstrate to the court and to those on whose behalf the instant
lawsuit was filed its good faith commitment to the whole of the
court’s
orders
and
to
those
provisions
of
the
law
and
the
constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in
the first instance . . . .” Rec. Doc. 704 at 1. That purpose has
not changed, nor should it.
The
parties
have
heretofore
agreed
upon
a
process
for
appointing a CDIO; the de facto procedure thus far has been for
11
Defendant
to
select
someone
and
then
seek
approval
for
the
selection from this Court. See Rec. Doc. 1325 at 7. For the first
time in seven years, however, this Court considered, and found
persuasive, Plaintiffs’ argument that there is less risk of bias
if an outsider is appointed to the position. Id. Ultimately, this
Court determined that “[t]he appointment of Mr. Jackson would bring
a
level
of
independence
and
impartiality
that
would
better
facilitate achieving unitary status, which is the ultimate and
primary
goal.”
Id.
Mr.
Thompson’s
previous
employment
with
Defendant weakens the appearance of neutrality that a person in
the CDIO’s position should promote and the need at this critical
stage for someone like Mr. Jackson to help facilitate a reasonable
conclusion of this decades-old desegregation case.
Mr. Jackson is an independent and well-respected member of
the community who is not only a leader in the church, but a
qualified
administrator.
He
spent
sixteen
years
managing
an
organization dedicated to helping at-risk youth. Rec. Doc. 1286-5
at 2. In that role, he worked directly with staff in the Tangipahoa
Parish School System. Rec. Doc. 1286 at 10. After the previous
CDIO
announced
his
retirement,
the
CCO
noted
that
he
was
principled, dedicated, and conscientious and that he would be
missed; the CCO then gave “significant thought and reflection to
who would best serve the Court and parties as the next [C]DIO,”
12
and he recommended Andrew Jackson. Rec. Doc. 1286 at 10. This Court
agrees with that recommendation for reasons given then and now.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons outlined above,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for relief/reconsideration is
DENIED, with the respectful hope that the foregoing answers the
issues duly raised by the Circuit panel.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of October, 2016.
___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
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?