Adams v. Demopolis City Sch.

• Decision Date: 22 March 2022
• Docket Number: CIV. ACT. NO. 2:20-cv-27-TFM-N
• Citation: 592 F.Supp.3d 1049
• Parties: Jasmine ADAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEMOPOLIS CITY SCHOOLS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

592 F.Supp.3d 1049

Jasmine ADAMS, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.DEMOPOLIS CITY SCHOOLS, et al., Defendants.

CIV. ACT. NO. 2:20-cv-27-TFM-N

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division.

Signed March 22, 2022

Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmermann, Eli Hare, DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, Birmingham, AL, Irene Lax, Pro Hac Vice, Grant and Eisenhofer, New York, NY, Kenneth P. Abbarno, DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, Mentor, OH, Kimberly Evans, Pro Hac Vice, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE, for Plaintiffs.

Alexander Fournier Braswell, Lloyd, Dinning, Boggs & Dinning, Demopolis, AL, Clay Richard Carr, Boardman, Carr & Hutcheson, P.C., Chelsea, AL, Mark S. Boardman, Boardman, Carr, Petelos, Watkins & Ogle, P.C., Chelsea, AL, for Defendants Demopolis City Schools, Kyle Kallhoff, Tori Infinger, Gloria Mims, Tracy Stewart.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

TERRY F. MOORER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The death of a child is tragic and even more so if it is by suicide. Regardless of the legal issues in this case, the death of McKenzie Adams is a stark reminder of the tragedy of suicides and the effect on those left behind wondering why.

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 180, 181, filed July 14, 2021). The Court has considered the Defendants’ motion and brief, the Plaintiffs’ responsive brief (Doc. 189, filed August 19, 2021) and evidence, the Defendants’ reply brief (Doc. 190, filed September 2, 2021), the arguments of counsel during the lengthy hearing held November 22, 2021, and relevant law. As a result, the Court finds Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 180) is due to be GRANTED for the reasons articulated below.

I. PARTIES¹ AND JURISDICTION

Plaintiffs Jasmine Adams ("Jasmine"), individually as the mother of McKenzie Adams ("McKenzie")² , and McKenzie's grandmother Janice Adams ("Janice"), as the personal representative of McKenzie's estate (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), assert claims against Defendants Demopolis City Schools ("DCS"), former DCS superintendent Kyle Kallhoff ("Kallhoff"), former U.S. Jones Elementary School's Principal Tori Infinger ("Infinger"), former U.S. Jones Elementary School's Assistant Principal Tracy Stewart ("Stewart"), and U.S. Jones Elementary School fourth grade teacher Gloria Mims ("Mims") (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. , and 32 U.S.C. § 2000d, seeking redress of injuries suffered by McKenzie and the Plaintiffs, due to deprivation of rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 1343(a)(3) (civil rights and elective franchise). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Alabama state law claims that relate to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action that form part of the same case and controversy.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the cause of action arose in Marengo County, Alabama, which is located within the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

This case arises from the tragic death of McKenzie by suicide on December 3, 2018, in the home of her grandmother, Janice, where McKenzie lived. At the time, McKenzie was a 9-year-old fourth grader at U.S. Jones Elementary School, which is a part of the Demopolis, Alabama, City School System. Janice testified that on the date of her death McKenzie attended school and came home as usual, around 3:45 p.m. See Doc. 189-11, Janice Depo., at 44. She seemed "a little quieter than usual but had a snack and began her homework." Id. at 45. Janice could not recall anything different about her behavior and had absolutely no reason to believe she might do something to harm herself. Id. at 45-46. Plaintiffs attribute McKenzie's suicide to bullying and harassment they say McKenzie endured at school; the Defendants’ alleged failure to implement appropriate policies to prevent bullying; and their failure to train school staff adequately in recognizing and responding to bullying behavior.

In response to a report from Janice in late October 2018, Ms. Stewart prepared a plan to deal with any student harassing or bullying McKenzie. Id. at 83-88. The plan was acceptable to Janice. Id. at 88-89. Janice never had any reason to follow up with Ms. Stewart.

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on January 16, 2020. Doc. 1. In response, Defendants filed an Answer on February 13, 2020. Doc. 13. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on April 23, 2020, in which U.S. Jones Elementary School was terminated as a defendant. Doc. 27. Subsequently, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot. Docs. 16, 28. Defendants filed an Answer to First Amended Complaint on May 7, 2020. Doc. 36. After the Court granted leave to amend their Complaint, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 10, 2020. Doc. 44. Defendants filed an Answer to Second Amended Complaint on July 24, 2020. Doc. 45.

In the Second Amended Complaint, now the operative pleading, Plaintiffs assert eleven counts.

• Count I accuse DCS of violating Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.

• Count II pleads violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d by DCS.

• Count III states a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violation by DCS, Kallhoff and Infinger of McKenzie's right to substantive due process under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

• Count IV asserts a § 1983 claim for violation of 14th Amendment equal protection rights by DCS, Kallhoff and Infinger.

• Count V argues wrongful death under Ala. Code § 6-5-391 arising from negligent, reckless or wanton hiring, training, retention and supervision of personnel by DCS.

• Count VI maintains a similar claim under Ala. Code § 6-5-391 against Infinger, Stewart and Mims for negligent, reckless or wanton conduct.

• Count VII, also under Ala. Code § 6-5-391 contends wrongful death resulting from Kallhoff's, Infinger's, Mims’ and Stewart's negligent, reckless, wanton or wrongful actions or failure to act.

• Count VIII, again under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, avers DCS, Kallhoff and Infinger violated McKenzie's 14th Amendment substantive due process rights by failing to properly hire, train, and supervise DCS personnel.

• Count IX alleges a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that all Defendants breached a duty to protect McKenzie by failing to train teachers and administrators adequately, resulting in a substantive due process violation.

• Count X advances a 14th Amendment substantive due process violation by DCS through a policy or custom of inaction in failing to prevent harassment between students and failing to train teachers and administrators adequately.

• Count XI charges Kallhoff maintained a policy or custom of failing to prevent harassment between students and failing to enforce rules against bullying, thereby violating McKenzie's 14th Amendment substantive due process rights.

On July 14, 2021, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment and brief in support. Docs. 180, 181, filed July 14, 2021. Plaintiffs filed a Response on August 19, 2021, to which Defendants filed a reply on September 2, 2021. Docs. 189, 190. On September 3, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for Oral Argument which the Court granted. Docs. 191, 196. The Court held an oral argument hearing on November 22, 2021. The Court has considered the written submissions and the arguments of counsel during the lengthy hearing. Further, the motions are fully briefed and ripe for adjudication.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A party in a lawsuit may move a court to enter summary judgment before trial. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a), (b). Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party establishes there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a) ; see also Greenberg v. BellSouth Telecomm's, Inc. , 498 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2007) ("Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine [dispute] as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ "). "[T]he substantive law will identify which facts are material." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986) ; see also Ritchey v. S. Nuclear Operating Co. , 423 F. App'x 955 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S. Ct. at 2510 ).³ At the summary judgment juncture, the court does not "weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter," but solely "determine[s] whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S. Ct. at 2511. Only disputes about the material facts will preclude the granting of summary judgment. Id.

The movant bears the initial burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). A party must support its assertion that there is no genuine issue of material fact by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations ... admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials" or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1). The admissibility of evidence is subject to the same standards and rules that govern admissibility of evidence at trial. Clemons v. Dougherty...