TUTTLE, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal by the Board of Education from an order of the trial court requiring a start in the desegregation of the public school system of Duval County, Florida, of which the city of Jacksonville is the county seat. The basis of the appeal is that by including a prohibition against approving budgets, making available funds, and otherwise providing the physical facilities to “maintain or support a school system operated on a racially segregated basis” and by prohibiting “the assignment of teachers, principals, and other supervising or supporting personnel to schools on the basis of the race and color of the” said persons or the race and color of the pupils attending the respective schools, the trial court went too far. This, it is asserted, results both because there was a lack of a finding of facts warranting these two injunctive orders and also because there is nothing in the decided school desegregation cases that warrants such broad orders of injunction.
In point of fact, relatively little was required to be done by the Board of Education immediately by the trial court’s injunctive order. It outlined under paragraphs A, B, C, D, and E certain prohibited acts. Under paragraph F, it prohibited applying the criteria of the Florida Pupil Assignment Law other than uniformly and without racial discrimination. The order made only the requirements of paragraph F applicable immediately, but it then required that the defendants “on or before October 30, 1962, submit to the Court for its consideration a detailed and comprehensive plan for putting subparagraphs A, B, C, D and E of paragraph 3 above into effect throughout the Duval County public school system.”
Appellants, recognizing as they do, the binding authority of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873; 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083, and the many decisions of this Court interpreting and giving effect to that landmark decision, do not contest that part of the trial court’s order that is included in the first' lettered paragraphs, A, B and C. Nor do they complain of paragraph F, which requires them to apply the criteria of the Florida Pupil Assignment ‘Law non-racially. They do complain of being required to submit a plan which includes the requirements under paragraphs D and E. The principal attack is made on that provision which prohibits the assigning of teachers, principals and other supervising or supporting personnel to schools on the basis of race.
We are faced in limine with the question whether we have before us an appealable order. While neither party raises the issue, since both apparently •desire to have this Court’s ruling on the question at issue, absence of an appeal-able order denies this Court of jurisdiction and must be noticed by the Court itself. It is plain that much of the order of the trial court is deferred in point of time. To this extent it may be said that the litigants may have an opportunity to prevail upon the Court prior to the actual effectuation of these parts of the order to request that they may be modified. To that extent they may be considered to be interlocutory orders. However, it was much the same kind of an order that came before this Court in Orleans Parish School Board v. Bush, 5 Cir., 242 F.2d 156 Although the Orleans Parish order required immediate acceptance of the principle of non-segregated schools, it is obvious that the order allowed the Board time to put it into effect. Clearly implying that arrangements should be started at once, the trial court nevertheless fixed the date after which there were to be no further distinctions based on race at “such time as may be necessary to make arrangements for admission of children to such schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed as required by the decision of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education.” Nevertheless, in that appeal and also in a subsequent one in which the validity of the order was attacked by reason of the failure of the successful plaintiffs to post the bond required in the original order, this Court has not considered the order one that is not appealable by reason of not being an injunctive order. Of course, neither the order in the Bush case nor the one before us here is a final order in the sense that nothing further is left to be done by the trial court. It is appealable, therefore, if at all, only under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(a) (1). That section gives Courts of Appeal jurisdiction over “[ijnterlocutory orders of the district courts * * * granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions * * It thus becomes necessary for us to determine whether the order of the trial court is one which “grants an injunction.”
In light of our treatment of the order in the Bush case, it seems that there would be little question but that the order here appealed from falls within the language of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(a) (1), were it not for a well considered case decided by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Taylor v. Board of Education, etc., 2 Cir., 288 F.2d 600. In that case, involving an order relating to the school system for the City of New Rochelle, New York, that court, one judge dissenting, raised the issue of appealability on its own motion and decided that Judge Kaufman’s order in the trial court ordering the submission of a plan did not amount to mandatory injunction.
Of course, it should be made plain here that paragraph F of the order before us did require immediate application of the Florida Pupil Assignment Law. If the appellant, Board, had appealed from the effect of this part of the order there would be no doubt about the appealability. It has not, however, appealed from this provision of the order, thus leaving as the basis for its appeal only subparagraph (c) of paragraph 4, which requires them “on or before October 30, 1962, to submit to the court for its consideration a detailed and comprehensive plan for putting subparagraphs A, B, C, D and E of paragraph 3 above into effect throughout the Duval County public school system.”
The clear difference between the order before us and that in the New Rochelle case is that the trial court did expressly include in its order the following language in paragraph 3:
“The defendants, The Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, Florida * * * are, with respect to the public school system of Duval County, Florida, enjoined and restrained permanently from allowing, permitting or committing all, or any of the following:”
Then follow the lettered paragraphs which are quoted in Footnote 1 above. Then, although the trial court provided that the provisions of subparagraphs A, B, C, D and E “shall not be effective until the further order of this Court” it then said, “The defendants are directed, on or before October 30, 1962, to submit to the Court for its consideration a detailed and comprehensive plan for putting subparagraphs A, B, C, D and E of paragraph 3 above into effect throughout the Duval County public school system.” Thus it is that having enjoined the doing of the acts mentioned in the lettered paragraphs and having deferred the date on which the injunction should go into effect, the Court positively and affirmatively directed that a plan be submitted that would provide for carrying out the paragraphs that were to be later effectuated. We conclude that the ordering of the plan dealing expressly with these prohibited acts amounts to a mandatory injunction. To the extent that this may differ with the understanding of what constitutes an injunction as expressed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, we must respectfully disagree with its views. We think, however, that there is no real conflict because, as that Court said, “Whether Judge Kaufman’s direction for the submission of a plan on April 14 is a mandatory injunction requires, in the first instance, interpretation of what was said.” What was said here was quite different from the limited statement made by Judge Kaufman in his decree.
Having concluded that this is an; appealable order, we come next to the. merits of the controversy. Stated in general terms, that question is whether the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education of-Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct.; 686, 98 L.Ed. 873, and' the subsequent ', appearance of the same case, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083, or other authoritative decisions of that or this court, authorize an order by a trial court, once it has found the existence of a dual system of schools operated on a racially segregated basis, to include in its order seeking to remedy such a situation a prohibition against the assignment of teachers and other personnel on a racial basis and to prohibit the financing and physical arrangement of schools on a racial basis. We think the answer to this question is clear. The Supreme Court’s solution of the question of the manner “in which relief is to be accorded” under its original decision in that connection was expressed as follows:
“While giving weight to these public and private considerations, the courts will require that the defendants make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with our May 17,1954, ruling. Once such a start has been made, the courts may find that additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective manner. The burden rests upon the defendants to establish that such time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date. To that end, the courts may consider problems related to administration, arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” (Emphasis added.)
The argument of appellants here is largely to the effect that no court heretofore has expressly required the elimination of teacher assignment by race or ¡the planning of schools and finances to avoid racial operation of the schools. ¡This argument, of course, falls far wide 'of the mark. Neither, has any appellate I court had occasion to hold that for a trial court to go so far would be unwarranted under the Supreme Court’s decision. In Augustus v. Board of Public Instruction of Escambia County, Florida, 5 Cir., 306 F.2d 862, this Court set aside an order of the trial court dismissing allegations in the complaint filed on behalf of Negro school children seeking to put an end to the assignment of teachers and other personnel by race. We thus held that it is a matter of proper concern in such a suit as the one now before us that teachers are so assigned. So too, in Calhoun et al. v. A. C. Latimer et al., 5 Cir., 321 F.2d 302, this Court held that the trial court did not err in postponing consideration of the teacher assignment question.
Where, however, the trial court, which has the first duty with respect to requiring action if none is taken initially by the Board of Education, considers that in order fully to implement the Supreme Court’s decision it will be necessary to put an end to the assignment of teachers and other personnel by race to the schools within the Board’s jurisdiction we think it can not conceivably be said that such an order goes beyond the permissible range of the trial court’s choice of means to put an end to an operation of schools on a racially segregated basis. The same, of course, is true with respect to the requirement that the plan called for by the injunctive order make provision for putting into effect an end of approving budgets, malting funds available, approving employment contracts and construction programs, and approving policies, curricula and programs designed to perpetuate, maintain or support a school system operated on a racially segregated basis — the challenged provisions of paragraph D of the Court’s order.
We conclude that the basic findings made by the trial court, which are not here in dispute, that “up to the present time, said biracial school system has been and is presently continued, perpetuated and maintained by the defendants as a matter of policy, custom and usage,” and that “now as in the past, Negro personnel are assigned to Negro schools and white personnel are assigned to white schools,” and the further finding that “in the eight (8) years since the first Brown decision the defendants have not adopted any plan whatever for eliminating racial discrimination in the public school system committed to them for administration,” fully warrant the Court’s conclusion: “In the instant case (and in similar cases) this Court is required by clear and binding precedent to frame a broad decree, granting to the plaintiffs in substance the injunctive relief sought by the complaint.” The contested provisions of the decree fall well within the permitted range of relief that can properly be granted as a part of such decree.
The judgment is affirmed.
. After reciting the preliminary paragraphs the injunction contained the following provisions :
“A. Continuing to operate a compulsory biracial school system in Duval County, Florida;
“B. Continuing to maintain a dual scheme or pattern of attendance areas based upon race or color;
“C. Assigning pupils to schools on the basis of race and color of the pupils;
“D. Approving budgets, making available funds, approving employment contracts and construction programs, and approving policies, curricula and programs designed to perpetuate, maintain or support a school system operated on a racially segregated basis.
“E. Assigning teachers, principals, and other supervising or supporting personnel to schools on the basis of the race and color of the persons to be assigned and/or the race and color of the pupils attending the schools to which the personnel are assigned ; and
“F. Applying the criteria of the Florida Pupil Assignment Law, or any other criteria for admission, assignment or reassignment, to schools other than uniformly and without racial discrimination as to use or application there of (see paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 10 of the Conclusions of Law filed herewith for clarification).
“4. (a) The provisions of subparagraph F of paragraph 3 above are effective immediately and systemwide throughout the county.
“(b) The provisions of subparagraphs A, B, C, D and E of paragraph 3 above shall not be effective until the further order of this Court.
“(c) The defendants are directed, on or before October 30, 1962, to submit to the Court for its consideration a detailed and comprehensive plan for putting subparagraphs A, B, C, D and E of paragraph 3 above into effect throughout the Duval County public school system.
“(d) Upon the filing of said plan and hearing thereon, the Court will enter its supplemental decree herein accepting or rejecting the same in whole or in part and making such further disposition as right and justice may require.”
. The order in that case was as follows:
“It is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the defendant, Orleans Parish School Board, a corporation and its agents, its servants, its employees, their successors in office, and those in concert with them who shall receive notice of this order, be and they are hereby restrained and enjoined from requiring and permitting segregation of the races in any school under their suporvision, from and after such time as may be necessary to make arrangements for admission of children to such schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed as required by the decision of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka [347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873], supra.”
. The decree of the trial court there before the Court of Appeals was as follows:
“In determining the maimer in which the Negro children residing within the Lincoln district are to be afforded the opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution, I will follow the procedure authorized by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 [75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083] (1955), and utilized by many district courts in implementing the Brown principles. Thus, I deem it unnecessary at this time to determine the extent to which each of the items of relief requested by plaintiffs will be afforded. Instead, the Board is hereby ordered to present to this Court, on or before April 14, 1961, a plan for desegregation in accordance with this Opinion, said desegregation to begin no later than the start of the 1961-62 school year. This court will retain jurisdiction of this action until such plan has been presented, approved by the court, and then implemented.
“The foregoing Opinion will constitute the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.