Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., No. 15-31119 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

In 1967, the district court entered an initial injunction against the School Board after this desegregation suit was filed. In 2015, a dispute arose concerning the Board’s selection of the newest Chief Desegregation Implementation Officer (CDIO). The Board moved in the district court for (1) approval of its candidate as CDIO, (2) elimination of the CDIO position, or (3) revision of the CDIO job description. The district court denied the motions and appointed plaintiffs’ candidate as CDIO. The Board then filed a timely notice of appeal. The court concluded that a timely notice of appeal divests the district court’s jurisdiction, meaning it cannot grant a party’s Rule 60(b) motion unless this court remands. Therefore, the court remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to rule on the matter identified in its indicative order.

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 24, 2017.

Download PDF
Case: 15-31119 Document: 00513667514 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 15-31119 September 7, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk M. C. MOORE, as father and next friend to minors Joyce Marie Moore, Jerry Moore, and Thelma Louise Moore; HENRY SMITH, as father and next friend to minors Bennie Smith, Charles Edward Smith, Shirley Ann Smith, and Earline Smith, v. Plaintiffs - Appellees TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, a corporation, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The district court entered an initial injunction against Tangipahoa Parish School Board in 1967 soon after this desegregation suit was filed. In 2008, the district court granted the parties’ joint motion to create the position of Chief Desegregation Implementation Officer (“CDIO”) to spearhead the Board’s implementation of the court’s remedial orders. In 2015, a dispute arose concerning the Board’s selection of the newest CDIO. In accord with its former practice, the Board selected a candidate, Lawrence Thompson, with a master’s degree and educational experience. The plaintiffs claimed that a local minister, Andrew Jackson, would be a better Case: 15-31119 Document: 00513667514 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/07/2016 No. 15-31119 choice. The Board moved in the district court for (1) approval of its candidate as CDIO, (2) elimination of the CDIO position, or (3) revision of the CDIO job description. The district court denied the motions and appointed the plaintiffs’ candidate as CDIO. The Board then filed a timely notice of appeal. Later, the Board filed a motion in the district court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), seeking relief from the order appointing Jackson as CDIO. The Board alleged it recently discovered Jackson has a conflict of interest with the named plaintiffs that affects his suitability for the CDIO position. A timely notice of appeal divests the district court’s jurisdiction, meaning it cannot grant a party’s Rule 60(b) motion unless this court remands. Lopez Dominguez v. Gulf Coast Marine & Assocs., Inc., 607 F.3d 1066, 1073–74 (5th Cir. 2010). Rule 12.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a district court to state that a motion filed while a case is on appeal and which it cannot grant raises a “substantial issue.” The district court so stated and indicated that if the case were remanded, it would determine whether a conflict of interest exists. We REMAND for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to rule on the matter identified in its indicative order. Should the district court determine that Andrew Jackson should no longer be the CDIO, this remand does not authorize the court to make a new appointment. The district court should also make additional findings to explain its appointment of Mr. Jackson instead of Mr. Thompson. After the district court’s entry of a final ruling on the pending motion, the case should be returned to this panel, which will retain jurisdiction during the pendency of the limited remand. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.