# Jones

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · September 14, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11441294

## Case

- **Full name:** Beryl N. Jones, et al. v. Caddo Parish School Board, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** September 14, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11441294

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

BERYL N. JONES, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION NO. 65-11055

VERSUS JUDGE ALEXANDER C. VAN HOOK

CADDO PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
ET AL.

MEMORANDUM RULING

After sixty-one years, this desegregation litigation reached its end. That end
came about without judicial involvement and without ceremony because the only
parties still appearing in this case, the United States of America (“United States”)
and the Caddo Parish School Board (“School Board”), signed and filed a joint
stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). At that
moment, the case concluded. Angela Wells (“Wells”) and the Louisiana State
Conference of the NAACP (“NAACP”) have tried to stop that stipulation from taking
effect. Wells and the NAACP (collectively, “Movants”) asked this Court to strike the
stipulation of dismissal and grant their previously pending motion to intervene. But
that stipulation of dismissal ended the case when it was filed, depriving this Court of
jurisdiction and leaving it with “nothing left to adjudicate.” Smith v. Sch. Bd. of
Concordia Par., 181 F.4th 629, 636 (5th Cir. 2026). Therefore, the motion to strike
the stipulation of dismissal, Record Document 30, is DENIED.
Background
This lawsuit began in 1965 when seven Black children and their parents sued
the School Board to desegregate Caddo Parish’s public schools.1 The United States

intervened as a plaintiff that same year. The original, private plaintiffs have not
appeared since August of 1974.
On June 3, 1980, after a status conference the day before where only the United
States and the School Board appeared, this Court entered a minute entry that stated
counsel for the original plaintiffs should notify the Court within thirty days if they
“still have a viable interest in the case.” Jones v. Caddo Par. Sch. Bd., 704 F.2d 206,
213-14. The minute entry also made clear: “[i]f the plaintiffs’ counsel does not

respond, this court will consider that the plaintiffs acquiesce in having their interests
represented by the United States as plaintiff-intervenor.” Id. None responded.
Since the expiration of that thirty-day deadline, this Court and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit have treated the lawsuit as one between
two parties: the United States and the School Board. Jones, 704 F.2d at 212. The
Fifth Circuit held that this “district court correctly viewed this action as one involving

only two parties, and not as a class action, after July 3, 1980.” Id. The Fifth Circuit
explained that before this Court set the thirty-day deadline: “[T]he only plaintiff who
had actively participated over the previous two and one-half years was the United

1 The storied history of this case has been retold many times, so only direct quotations have a
pinpoint citation. E.g., Jones v. Caddo Par. Sch. Bd., 499 F.2d 914 (5th Cir. 1974); Jones v. Caddo Par.
Sch. Bd., 704 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1983); Jones v. Caddo Par. Sch. Bd., 735 F. 2d 923 (5th Cir. 1984);
Jones v. Caddo Par. Sch. Bd., No. 89-4405 (5th Cir. Mar. 29, 1990); see also Cavalier ex rel. Cavalier
v. Caddo Par. Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 246, 251-253 (5th Cir. 2005). Unless cited otherwise, all facts in this
opinion come from one of these predecessors.
States.” Id. at 213. Because no plaintiff other than the United States had participated
or appeared, the Fifth Circuit reasoned that “the record strongly supports the district
court’s determination that the plaintiffs had lost interest in pursuing this litigation,

and that they had no objection to the United States, as plaintiff-intervenor, seeking
further desegregation of the parish schools.” Id. at 214.
Although this Court did not enter a formal order of dismissal, the Fifth Circuit
reasoned that expiration of the deadline set in the June 3, 1980 minute entry
functioned as a dismissal of all plaintiffs other than the United States. See Jones, 704
F.2d at 214 (“The failure of the plaintiffs and their counsel to affirmatively assert an
interest in this action within the prescribed time period, combined with the

uncertainty surrounding the ‘class’ aspect of the suit over the preceding six years and
the lack of any class certification, warranted the district court’s dismissal of the
claims of the class for failure to prosecute.”). So, for the last forty-six years, the United
States has been the only plaintiff.
On May 7, 1981, the Court entered a Consent Decree between the United
States and the School Board. That Consent Decree had been negotiated by two parties

and signed by two parties—the United States and the School Board. Jones, 704 F.2d
at 214 (“[T]he settlement negotiations and the resulting consent decree were the
efforts of two parties, the School Board on one side and the United States…on the
other.”). The Consent Decree set forth provisions for the desegregation of Caddo
Parish’s public schools. Record Document 1-2 at 9 (“It is the determination of this
Court…that the plan for the [School Board] embodied in this Decree is reasonable
and appropriate for the additional desegregation of the [public schools], and upon its
successful implementation will in fact and in law create a unitary school system for
Caddo Parish.”). The Consent Decree also included a procedure for declaring the

school system unitary and dismissing the case:
At any time after the 1983-84 school year, the [School
Board] may file a Notice of Compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Decree. If the United States agrees that
the Board is in full compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Decree, the United States shall join in the
Notice and shall state that it supports an order declaring
the [school] system to be unitary and dismissing the case.

Record Document 1-2 at 39.
In 1987, the School Board filed a notice of compliance and asked this Court to
rule that the school system had achieved unitary status. The United States objected.
Following negotiations between the United States and the School Board, they filed a
joint motion seeking an order to affirm their agreement.
On April 4, 1990, this Court entered an order that held that the School Board
had complied with and fully implemented the Consent Decree except for three
provisions. The School Board had not fully implemented obligations related to (1)
assigning principals to schools under Part I, Section F, entitled “Faculty and Staff”;
(2) establishing enhancement programs at remaining one-race schools under Part II,
Section E, entitled “Remaining One-Race Schools”; and (3) encouraging majority to
minority transfer of students under Part II, Section F, entitled “Majority to Minority
Transfers.” The April 4, 1990 order also permitted either party to “apply to the court
to reschedule the hearing to present evidence with respect to the merits of these
[remaining obligations.]” Record Document 8-2 at 3.
This litigation then sat dormant for more than two decades until March 2,

2026, when the School Board filed a motion to “reschedule the hearing” and declare
its school system unitary. Record Document 8. In response, the United States stated
that it “has no opposition” to the School Board’s request and “considers Caddo Parish
School Board to have complied with the 1981 Consent Decree and eliminated the
vestiges of the past de jure segregation to the extent practicable.” Record Document
12. Within days of the motion to reschedule the hearing, Movants sought to intervene
for themselves and on behalf of a class of schoolchildren and their parents. Record

Document 13. The undersigned set the motion to intervene for hearing and ordered
additional briefing. Record Document 25.
While the motion to intervene remained pending, the Fifth Circuit decided
Smith v. School Board of Concordia Parish, 181 F.4th 629 (5th Cir. 2026). Smith held
that, even in a desegregation case, a stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) ends a case and dismisses the action without a court

order. Id. at 636.
A few days after the Smith decision, the United States and the School Board
filed a “Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Case with Prejudice.” Record Document 29. The
stipulation was signed by both parties, stated that the “parties in this case agree that
the Caddo Parish School District has achieved unitary status,” and dismissed their
lawsuit “with prejudice in its entirety.” Id. In response, Movants filed the pending
motion to strike the joint stipulation of dismissal. Record Document 30.
Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) empowers parties to end a case
without judicial intervention. Smith, 181 F.4th at 633. That rule states: “the plaintiff
may dismiss an action without a court order by filing…a stipulation of dismissal
signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). A stipulation
of dismissal is “effective immediately” and “[n]o court order is needed because the
stipulation itself does the dismissing.” Smith, 181 F.4th at 633, 635.
The United States and the School Board used the mechanism of Rule 41(a) to

end their lawsuit. The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal, signed that
stipulation, and even specified that the dismissal was with prejudice. Record
Document 29; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B) (“Unless the notice or stipulation
states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.”). Even though that stipulation
dismissed “the action without a court order,” Smith, 181 F.4th at 629, Movants have
asked that the joint stipulation be stricken. Record Document 30.

Movants argue that the stipulation is procedurally deficient for two reasons.
They first contend that the stipulation should have included the signatures of all
plaintiffs who have ever appeared in this lawsuit, even those that have been absent
for half a century. See Record Document 30 at 2. Movants also claim that the United
States and the School Board should have obtained their signatures because
“equitable principles” dictate that they should be “treated as a de facto party[.]”
Record Document 30-1 at 7. Neither argument has merit.
First, the stipulation is not procedurally deficient because the only parties still

appearing, the United States and the School Board, both signed it. See Record
Document 29 at 3. More than forty years ago, Judge Tom Stagg warned the private
plaintiffs that he would “consider that the plaintiffs acquiesce in having their
interests represented by the United States as plaintiff-intervenor” if they did not
provide notice otherwise. Jones, 704 F.2d at 213-14. Since then, this Court and the
Fifth Circuit have treated the lawsuit as “one involving only two parties[.]” Id. at 212.
Even the Movants acknowledge that the private plaintiffs were functionally

dismissed forty years ago. Record Document 37 at 5 (“When the Court dismissed the
private plaintiffs from this litigation….”).
The Consent Decree, which the Movants hope to continue, also supports that
the United States and the School Board are the only parties still in this lawsuit. The
Fifth Circuit explained forty-three years ago that “the settlement negotiations and
the resulting consent decree were the efforts of two parties, the School Board on one

side and the United States…on the other.” Jones, 704 F.2d at 214. Because only two
parties have appeared in this lawsuit for nearly fifty years, the stipulation of
dismissal required no other signatures. See, e.g., Smith, 181 F.4th at 633 (noting that
“the remaining parties…jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice[.]) (emphasis
added).
Second, equitable principles cannot provide a backdoor for refusing to honor
the stipulation of dismissal. Movants have said that as proposed intervenors they
should be treated as a de facto party whose signature was required on the stipulation

based on “equitable principles.” Record Document 30-1 at 7. The Fifth Circuit has
foreclosed such “public interest” inquiries when dealing with a stipulation of
dismissal, even if the case involves “grave constitutional interests” like the
desegregation of public schools. Smith, 181 F.4th at 363.
Smith v. School Board of Concordia Parish, 181 F.4th 629 (5th Cir. 2026)
involved, much like this case, a decades-old desegregation litigation. The United
States and Concordia Parish School Board filed a joint stipulation of dismissal but

the district court “refused to honor” the stipulation and ordered an evidentiary
hearing instead. Id. at 633. The district court found that the parties must have
“reached sufficient Green factor compliance to warrant a declaration of unitary status
and dismissal.” Id. The district court required an evidentiary hearing before
dismissing the lawsuit for “the protection of others and/or judicial or public policies.”
Id. at 636.

The Fifth Circuit rejected that approach, explaining that it “did not doubt the
good faith behind that [public interest] concern. School desegregation decrees involve
grave constitutional interests and often long institutional histories…. [But Rule 41]
does not authorize a district court, in a case with no certified class and no remaining
private plaintiffs, to override a signed stipulation by all remaining parties because
the court believes a further public-interest inquiry would be prudent.” Id. at 636.
Smith controls here, and the Movant’s arguments based on concerns of equity and
public interest fail.
In the alternative, the Movants also argue that, regardless of the stipulation,

dismissal is not appropriate because jurisdiction still exists to consider their motion
to intervene. Record Document 30-1 at 2. Movants rely on a series of Fifth Circuit
decisions for the general proposition that “intervention can be permitted even after
dismissal of [a] case.” Id. (citing DeOtte v. State, 20 F.4th 1055, 1066 (5th Cir. 2021)).
Once again, though, Smith deprives them of relief.
Smith explained that a Rule 41(a)(A)(1)(ii) stipulation “renders subsequent
action by the district court superfluous with no force or effect. Put another way, the

stipulation automatically strips the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Smith, 181 F.4th at 635 (cleaned up). The Fifth Circuit concluded: “The district court
wanted a clean ending to a case of uncommon age and consequence. But federal
jurisdiction is not preserved by institutional memory, remedial caution, or the
understandable desire for one more hearing. Once the remaining parties filed their
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation, the case ended. From that point forward, the district

court had nothing left to adjudicate.” Id. So too here. The explicit language of Smith
communicates that when the United States and the School Board filed their
stipulation of dismissal it deprived this Court of jurisdiction to act further. This Court
cannot “refuse to honor,” the joint stipulation by refusing to dismiss this case, even
for “one more hearing” on the Movant’s motion to intervene.
The parties chose to end this desegregation action by signing and filing a
stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)Gi). When
the case ended, this Court’s jurisdiction to consider the pending motion to intervene
went with it. But Wells and the NAACP still have options. They may file their own
lawsuit, as seven Black children and their parents did sixty-one years ago, to address
any constitutional claims they might have against the School Board.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Strike
Stipulation of Dismissal and Grant Movants’ Pending Motion to Intervene, Record
Document 30, is DENIED. An order consistent with this opinion will be issued
forthwith.
DONE AND SIGNED at Shreveport, Louisiana, this 14th day of September,
2026.
CV
Wo © Vor load
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11441294. Public record. Not legal advice.