h !

TH E UNiT ED S

' ~WES

fJ l S TR CT C

}rr(

FOH . HS MIDDLF. DI STRICT 0.' ;.\ AB.'-\MA

j\I ORTHERd DISJF1.IC[

..

~--

HOSEA 1':iLLD-\MS , J OHN L EI,JI , AMEU A BO'&IJON ,

on behal f o f t h ernsell,re s <:\I\d o'c11 .r . . ,,'imil a:rl y
S:l. t ua t ed)
P la:l l d f f ~~;l

v,

CIV J:T ,
[\lO.

1IOj\ICf1ABLE GEOHGE C. Ii.!A!..I.I\C E)

AC I I C~l

o;~t81 ,i\ 1

G ,ve ?l ,o-e

33

of the State of Aluba~na, AL LING O. as

Directo of Public Safety f or the Sta te
of Ala,)ama c1 nd J .L\ MES G. CLAH:( ,
of Dallas County) Al b ama .

2S

~~---

Sh~l:i.'r[

--

PU dN'i' I FFS t MEiv\ORAllDUM 0 : POI NTS AND AUTl-ILoH,H IE,:, I N

SUPPORT 0 '= MOnO!'] FOR. PRELTM H1i\g y l!\JJUNCT I N AdD MO'LfON
fa DISSOLVE TEMPOHARY FtESTH!\INLi(i ORn ER. ,Il/; HI'3T l.P..]J\!LH S

"fli p CO lLL"C Is IJ./itll ou 't l ' 0 1,'II:H Oi' Ju .d sdic t i on To ~.l.' 2. t O.c
Con tjnu e 'the leln p o r a.r: y 1-1e s tri'lin i t\<j OLde~L' I ss d .j " J.\. y3i ns'(,
r l;.\ 'i l l i: He s ,

.:\,

H i,) v ' \-I r,D l ,s CEl " 2 Oci 11.. ,i!-09,

:~ L. ~, (,

43 6 (. 'l.-~ ),

b, E9l'\~ Y~ e li Og y, U()i t, p, cJ S Ut.,'i ". . 149 U . S . 6 ;18 'J

7 29 ( 1893T.'

(The elements of a civil cas _ includ _. at

.least~ "a comp l a i nant , - def andant, and
a judge ~-a ct Q;r , ...f..Y.., at -Lu..,<i2i, ")
c " 0 bor n v . l2.;w !$
8 19 (1 824 ).

0::'

t h,e lIt' .'.j. ecL.fu:at p. ~

t)

Wheat. '1 38 )

(Requi r ement of aciV GTSe pa rties asserting r i ghts

is pre -requisite to th e exercise of judic ia l
DOW21' , )

2. The Court h a s no juri sd iction under the Civil Rights

st etutes up on which this su it is ba se d to grant relief against
priva t e person s who are not subject to the Fourteenth Amendment.

a. g"o.Dsrre s s Of Raci a l Egua li t..Y_ _Y..:-.J- emmons, 323 F. 2d

54 5th Gir. 1963 ).
(Held Federal Court had no
jurisdiction over suit by city officials against
civ il rights demonstrators.)
:U.

f.~ lly v . Page , 335 F.2d 1141 117 (5th CiT.

1964),
(Chief Jud g e Tuttl e dissolved Tempo r ary Restraining
Order obtained by city against civil rights
demons t rators for lack of j0risdiction. on motion
far sta y. Fu ll panel of Court did n ot reach the
question of jur i sdiction because t r ial judge
entered no further injunction against civil
r ights group.)

c, Cf. COD~S

Of Ra c i al E uaJ. t
las ,
5th Cir. 1963.
Held that
injunc~ion against Freedom Riders was den ial
of First Amendment rights. )

318 F ,2d 95

~here

3.
Jr~e r

a gain st plain t iffs on t he theory that it involves a matter

a ~c~ll& ry

: v er

t~ a

to

~hreat er~ ng
~v s r

is no power to issue a Temporary Restra ini ng

~~ ei~

ciaim

~j ec~ ma ~ ter.

0=

to protect

t~e

Court's jurisdiction

The re was no claim that plaintiffs we re

to do any act wh:ch would oust the Court of

p " ai ntiffsl
b.

pen d~rg

juris d: c ti o~

cl~ ~m.

Bri go s v . Uni t ed

S t ate ~S hoe

Mach ioe y Co .

239 U.S. 48, 5 0 ( 19 m.

(Ge ne ral eq ui ty powers can only be asserted

in C2ses ~ ithin the jurisdiction of the
Federal Courts a5 defined by the Congress. )

b. See , Fo nt in v .

R~v en e !,

17 How. (US) 369.

15 L. ed. 8 0 (1 855).

c. See also , Indian- Mf g. Co . v . Koe hne, 188 U,S. 681.

690, 47 ~, ed. 65 1 . 656, 23 S.Ct. 452 (1903).
4.

There has

asser ting a claim

bee~

ag2ins~

no plea d ing or motion by any party

plaintiffs, or requesting that the relief

be granted as req ' :t . 0:\ by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

f ederal Rules of Ci vil Pro cedur e , Ru le 65(b) .
(The Ru l e f orbi ds Temporary Res t r aini ng Or ders
W::'thc' t not ice and hearing unless sp ec : fie facts
are shown by "affidavit or verified complaint"
demonstrati ng immediate and irreparable injury,
loss, or damage to I'the applicant" before notice
can be served and a hearing had thereon. )

II.

Th lS Court Should No t Cont inue I ts Orde r

Res tra i ni ng Plaint iffs Fro m Conducting A
Peaceful March From Selma To Montgomery.
Al abama.

A.

A pe a c e ful mar ch to protest de pri vation of con s titutional

r i ghts, and to urge the State Gover nment to

co~rect

such depriva

tion is protected under the first Amendment of th e Constitution,

as a n exe rcis e of freedom of speech, assembly a nd peti ti on for
r edr ess of gri. eva nces.
Louisiah ~.

Co x V,

Edwar ds v ,

S O.t.!iJ.:l......(:~M,

372 V.S. 229;

_____ V. S. _____ , 33 L.W. 4099 (Janua ry 18,

19~5).

Plai ntiffs here hav e at all times wished to conduct a

pea ceful . non-violent march to the Cap itol of the State of
Alabama in

o~6er

to

the ir ri ght to vote.

~rotest

the deprivation of Negro citizens of

They be ga n such a march on Sunday March 7,

t he marchers were entirely peaceful, and the only violence

~9 65;

that oecrred we s at the hands of St at e law enforcement officials.

It is clear that s uch a demonstration is protected under the First
!\rne:-.dme,n to th e CO! stituti on .

_w..i:iJ..os, supz- " , i nvol v ed a

Bui lding by

app:c~ima t ely

r;"lar ch

:~e

of

demo ~ 5tra t ors

-a~ s t itutic ~

on t he Louisiana State Capitol

2,000 persons protesting segie gati on and

discr im i nati on ag ain st Negroes.

arr es ~

1he recent case of Co x v ..

Th e Supreme Court held that t he

was a violation of the First Amendment of

a s i nco rp orated in the Fourteenth Amendment.

a federa l court should not enjoin the conducting of

S~~ ~_ 2 rly

s uch a pe ac eful clemor.stra ti-on Ke ll y v . Pa g e . 335 F.2d 114 (1964)

B.

The ri gh t of c i t izens of the United States to move

freel}' wi t, in th e coun tr y is an attribute of liberty protected by

the Lfth Ame ndme r.t t o the United States Constitution.

See. Ke nt

v. Dull es , 357 U. S. 116, 125-127 ; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S.

l60~ 181

(Doug la s, J. concurring) ; Slau gh te r Ho us e Ca e s , 83 U.S.

36, 78-80.

As a protected right, it should not be interfered with

exce pt un der extr aordi.nary circumstances.

- 3

Kent

V,

Dull es, supr a .

T~ e r e

C,

plai~tiff s

, ~ C : 9~ C E

~s

no show ing her e that the enj o i ni ng of

wa s n ec ess&ry.
o t ~e r

c:::

publi c d i s turba nce aga i ns t per s ons seeking to

e ~ erclse p eacEf ~ ~ I~

:.r.
~o

4 L 02 - ~

= e 5 tra i~

~.';.=

a constitutionel ly prote c te d right is not a

.i. r, ~9 T. er i n g

g:ro ' nd f o

It is cl ear that the threat of

.o_~Lou i<'i. a na ,

with them.

s upra , 33

If v io lence is t hr eatened, the prope r r emedy js

02 .

0= mo ve agai nst tho se th r eat en i ng the

v. Ad.Tk ,

3 ~, 8

vi olen~ e .

Aar on v. Co o _er, 237 F.2d 33 (8t:-

. , S, 1;

Ci r, :9:8) .

III .

Th is Co ur t Shou ld Exercis e Its Power

To Gr 1nt Plai ntiff s An d Member s Of
Th ei r Cl ass Th e Injunctive Relief
F'r2yed For,

J :;:- i
5 : 2 ~ 3,

~~ ic h

.. 1 343 .

oi this Cour t is bzs ed up on 28 U.S.C.

Ji CtiO.1

pr ovi de s:

i'L:'.1-Li ghts and el ec tiv e f r anchi se.

The di st r~c t cou:::ts sh el l have or igi

~ li ri s c;i ~ct:' on of a ny c i vL action 3l'tn o_i
1: '/ : av! "to ~ t; ccnmenc ed by any p.? = ~.) n :
-:::-

.N

.:~

n3 1

zed

""

:3 ) ~c :':: _8:: :: 55
s ~ v S ~ 2: e la ~,

trOt C: ep::iv at ian, u, cl e:;: color of

sta t ut e , ordina n c e, requ ls t i on,
CJ s: orr or ~ E~ g e , of an y ri ght , =i v il~ge or

>:m-! .-. ~-:. 'j se~Yre c.: b/ th e Co ns t it uti on o f th e

. ~ i~e ~ St etes or y a~ y Act of Congr es s pr ovid

:" :-.9 : 0:: sq .:cl r : g \ t s o f c i i ze n s or of al l
pe rs) ;;;; \.\li -: ~:'''''I t1;; ." .lxisC: .'. dio r. of the U.. i.t ed
3-: 2:e 5 .
~L )

To ::ecover

~ c ~~

~e_~s f under
-~e pr o tec t io ~

Jth e r

f -I

a s or

sec ure equi able or

'0

any Ac t o f Co gre ss pr ov id i n
ot

ci~~l

r ights, inc_ uding th e

:: i gh-::. to v,)t e ,

~ ~83 .

ili~ ti

n fo r o el? r i va t io n of rig ht s.

Ev e r y pe rs on who, under color of any sta t ute,

o:dinar ce , r eg l ation, custom, or us age , of any
St_ t e or Territ ory. subjec~5, or causes to be
su b je ~t ed, a ~y c i ti : en of t he United St ates or
sther parsc n wit hin th e jUIi sd icti on ~h 2 reof to
the d epr i v ation of eny rights, privileges, or

_ 4. _

immun i ties s ecured b the Con s t itution and laws.

shall be lia bl e t o t he part injured in an

acti on at l aw, su i t i n equity, or other proper

procee d ing for re dress.

B. Ib er e Exis t s h mQl e Precedent For

Federal_ In j unc t i ve B e l ~ e f Aga i ns t

Denia l s Of Federal Con s t it uti on al

Ri q h t2~ill!LL.a w Enf or cement

p fficers .

_ ll.

Ke l l y v. Pag e , 335 F.2d 114 (5th Cir. 1964) , the

Un i t e " Sta t es Court of Appeals for the Fifth Ci r c uit was

c o~ r

or t ed with a so mewhat simi l ar fact situat i on:

a dispute

had broke n out be twe en Negro e s protesting denials of their

fede r al cons t i t utiona l r i gh ts and the city administration of
t he c i t y of Al bany, Georgia; demonstrations had been held to
protest these den i a ls of constitutional right s; the demonstra tors
s ued in federal co urt for an i njunction against inte r f erences
wi th their demonstrations by the city officials; the city
officia l s cross-claimed to enjoin the demonstrators from continuing
their protests; the district court denied all injunctive relief;
the Court of Appe 2:s, however, held that the district court should
deter mi ne the rights of the parties, saying:
~irst, as t o the rights of plaintif f s, those
espo us in g ci v i l rights through the Movement, it
has long bee r settled, indeed from the beginning,
tha t a ci t iz en or grou p of citizens may assemble
an d pe t ition for redress of their grievances.
Firs t Amendment, U.S. Const . . . Ed ward v . South
~2ro:;' iD..s., 1963, 372 U.S. 22 9 . . P march to the
City Hall in an orderly fashion, and a prayer
session within the confines of what plaintiffs seek
w? u~d appear, wi thout more, to be implicit in this

:: ),9 (I t,

An d t hes e l: i ghts to picket and to march

an d t o assemble are not to be abridged by arrest or
oth e r interference so long as asserted within the
l i mits of not unreasonably interfering with the
r ight of others to use the sidewalks and streets, to
ha ve access to store entrances, and where conducted
in such manner as not to deprive the public of police
a nd fire protecti on

I n sho r t, those engaged in the Albany

Mo vemen t ha ve definite well defined constitutional
rights . They must be accorded where claimed, but
in a ma nner that will accommodate rights of othdI
citizens to the end that the rights of all may be
preserved.

- 5

On reman d , t he Dis t r i ct Judge enjo in ed the city off ici als

fro m, inter alia:
[ DJ e n ~ing to Negr o c i ti z e ns the righ t to pea ce fully
prot e st aga inst st at e enforced racial segregation in the
Ci ty of Alban y, Georg ia b y peacefully walking two
abr east upon th e p ubl i c s idewalks of the City of Albany.
obs er v i ng all traff i c sign als, walking close to the
bu i l di ng l i ne or close to the curb so as not to inter fere
with or obs t r uct other pe destrian traffic on the sidewalk
ar: d p e6cef ull y a ssembl ing in front of the City Hall and
pe a ce fu l l y spe a ki ng ou t against said segreg a tion for a
rea s on a b l e peri od of t i me when traffic to and from places
of bus i nes s or emplo yme nt is not at i t s pe a k , and in such
eir e ms ta nce s a s wil l not undul y disr upt t he public
pe a c e and con du ct ed i n such man ne r a s not to deprive the
public of ad e q ua ~ e po li ce and f ir e pr otection.

[P ]r ohib iti ng or preven t ing the act iv ities described

. . by ar r ests, thre a ts of arrest, haIas & ~ent or
int im i datio n .
[abo v e ~

In

~~nt o n

v . Clar k , Un i t ed Sta tes Di s trict Court, S.D.

Al a., No. 355 9-65, Un it ed Sta t es District Judge

Thom~s,

gu ar a nteed

the right of pla int iffs herein to pr ot est aga i n st denials of

voting rights, sa yi ng, in an order ent er e d January 23, 1965 :
Those int erested in encourag i ng others to register
to vote ha v e th e right peaceably to a ssemble outside
the court house, but shall not do so in such a way as to
interfere wi th lawful business expected to be transacted
i0. t he cour t house. Such persons also have a right to
peaceably assemble wi t hout molestation, and will be
permi t te d t o do so ; but v i olence, either by those so
~ssembled or officers ent i t le d to surveillance over
such assemb lag e s, or on th e part of outsiders, will not
be to~e r a t ed a t such assemblage.
Not only are such assemblages entitled to occur,
but t hose so a s sembled are entitled to have lawful
protec t io~ i n s uc h assemblage.
This ord er in no wi se is intended to interfere with
th e l~gal en f orcement of t he laws of the state of
Al aba ma , Dallas County. or the City of Selma. But under
th e gu ise of e nf orcement t here shall be no intimidation,
ha= assment or the li ke, of the citizens of Dallas County
_egi t im ately attempting to register to vote, nor of
those l egally at tempting to aid others in registering to
vote or enco u ag i ng them to register to vote.
In Ze .....l ner v . Li ngo, 218 F. Supp. 513 (M.D, Ala. 1963)

a f f1d. 334 F. 2d 620 (5t h CiI . 1964), this Court had before it
fa cts wh i ch bear a st rik ing superficial similarity to the
facts of t h e instant case.

There, the plaintiffs had planned a

" fr ee dor: march tl t hr ough the State of AlBbamCl as a memor ia l to

one Wil l i am Moore, who was shot and killed on

- 6

similar walk.

Pri or to the i r e ntry into the state, plaintiffs f il ed suit in

this Court ag ai ns t Di r e ct or of Public Safety Lingo. s eek i ng an
injunction against interfe re nce with the exerc i se of their
Fi rst and Fourteenth Amendment rights to walk peacefully through
the State.

Subsequent to the t i me the suit was filed, but prior

to de cis i on by this Court. pl ai ntiffs were arrested for breach

of the pe ac e b defendant Li ngo and those a cting under his
di re ction and con t r ol.
Pre l i min ari ly , this Court found t hat i t had jurisdiction

under 28 U, S , C. 1343 (218 F . Supp at 515) .

However, this Court

refuse d to srant in ju nctiv e rel ie f against the arr est and

prosecut io n of the plaintiff s , beca use i t found that the
pl ai nt i ffs, under t he doctrine of Douglas v .

Je ann~,

319 U.S.

IS7 (1917)' could protect their righ t s in the state court

system.

Howe ver, this Co urt not ed (218 F.Supp. at 518):

The a ction now being taken by this Court in

refusing to enjoin the criminal prosecution of
these plaintiffs by officers acting under color of
law for the State of Alabama must not be construed
as an ap proval of the action taken by these officers
in aIresting and pro~ecuting these plaintiffs .1J.D..Q"?...f
the uise of maintainin and r es erv i n the eace
-;mr tr a nq ui l i ty of the St a t e of Alabama . emphasis
supplied )
The re is e cr ucial difference between the fa ct s of this
cas e and those in Ze llner :

Here, there is no possibility of

pla i ntiffs' protec t i ng their rights in the state court system ;

the purpose of defendants, as evidenced by their actions of
March 7th and by their published statements,

'l,/

is not to punish

plaintiffs consistent with due process of law. but to punish them

su mmar ily with the club and the whip.

U-

See, to the same effect, State of Alabama v . Shine,

233 F. Supp. 371 (r.;.D. Ala. 1964).

1,/

Defendant Lingo was quoted by correspondent John Herbers

in the New York Times of March 9, 1965, p. 23. as saying,
" ~e don't believe in making arrests It is bet ter to
brea k them up,"

- 7

The infl ict io n of summary punis hment not onl cc nsU t ut es

J

a de ni al of due pr oc e ss of law and. con s i dering the nature of

the pr otest, a deni a l of equa l pr otection of the laws , but also
con stit ut es infl i ctio n of cruel and unusual punishment. in
v i ola t i on of the Ei ghth and Fourteenth .I\mendment s.

Robi nson v.

Calif or n i a, 370 U.S. 660 (1 962 ).

C.

Pl ai ntif fs ' right to demonstrate peacefully cannot be

abr idg ed by a proc l ama t ion that is ov erbI oadly drawn.

This

ca Ea dees not invol ve t he va l i dity of nar r owly drawn statuto r y

~ r f fi c
~o

regu l a tions that impose

d i n of ma rches.

r ea sonable lim it ations on the

Edwar d s v , Sout h

Ca r oli na. 372 U. S. 229.

Ra ther . here there is a proclamat i on by the Governor that

236.

bans completely al l marches wi t hout regard to manner, time. or

n~mber

of marchers.

I t is clear that th e right to maTch and

9 9 iti on for a redress of grie vances is protected by the First

ar.(

FO.JIteen ": h Amendments, Cox v . Lo uisia na, _

V S. _, 33

O,3 0 L. ~f. 4099 (T an uary 18, 1965).

Cox also :re af f irmed that demonstration s ma not be ba nned

b~

the exercise of a d iscretion unbridled by standards or

procedures, for "the lodging of such broa d discr eti on in a public

offici al allows him

~o

determine which expressions of view will

be permit t ed and which will not.

This thus sanctions a device

for the suppression of the communication of ideas and permits

t h e official to act as a censor."
~ ner v,

33 V.S.L .W . at 4105.

See also,

Louis is.!2.2, 368 V.S. 1 5 7 . 202 (Harlall, J. concurrin g) .

D. Plaintiffs! Peaceful Mar c b Qannpt

Be Outlawed Because of th e HQstijg

Re a c t i on I t Would Engende r

It is we ll settled that pers ons acting in the exercise of

the constitut io nal l y protected rights of free speech. assembly,
an~

petition cannot be punished or interfered with because of the

eets of hostil e onlookers.

The United States Supreme Court said

in Wr i ght v . Georgia, 373 V.S. 284 (1963):

llJne poss~o~~~~y or a~soraer oy o~ners cannot

justify exclusion of persons from a place if they
otherwise ha ve a constitutional right (founded
upon t he Equal Protection Clause) to be present.
Taylor v. Louisiana , 370 US 154, 8 L ed 2d 395,
82 S ct 1188; Gar ner v Louisiana, 368 US 157.
174, 7 L ed 2d 207 , 219, 82 S Ct 248; see also
Buchanan v Warley, 245 US 60, 80, 81, 62 L ed 149,
163, 38 S Ct 16, LRA 1918C210. 1-/

Respectfully submitted,

FAY

North Perry Street

Montgomery, Alabama
PETER HALL
1630 Fourth Avenue North
Birmingham, Alabama
JACK GREENBERG
JAMES M. NABRIT, III
NORMAN C. AMAKER
CHARLES H. JONES, JR.
MELVYN ZARR
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

See also, Barr v, City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 146, 150

(1964); Cox v. Louisiana, 33 U.S. L.W . 4099, 4102~4103
(January 18. 1965).