B.S. ex rel. Schneider v. Board of School Trustees
Decision Date | 03 January 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 1:02-CV-349.,1:02-CV-349. |
Citation | 255 F.Supp.2d 891 |
Parties | In re the Matter of B.S., By His Parent, Jackie SCHNEIDER Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES, FORT WAYNE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, and Thomas Fowler-Finn, in his Official Capacity as Superintendent, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Mark E. GiaQuinta, Haller and Colvin, Fort Wayne, IN, for plaintiff.
Wendy W. Davis, Matthew J. Elliott, Beckman Lawson Sandler Snyder and Federoff, Fort Wayne, IN, for defendants.
The Plaintiff, B.S. ("B.S."), by his parent Jackie Schneider ("Schneider"), brings this civil rights action for injunctive relief, challenging the Defendants' decision to expel him from high school ostensibly for engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct on school grounds.1 Specifically, B.S. raises 14th Amendment procedural and substantive due process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" § 1983"), and a state law claim seeking judicial review of the expulsion decision, pursuant to Ind.Code § 20-8.1-5.1-15.
Presently before the Court2 are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment filed on November 22, 2002. Because B.S.'s motion for summary judgment referred to a diary that is outside the record, and an email message which B.S. attached to his amended complaint, the Defendants filed a motion to strike these materials or any reference to them as both unauthenticated and irrelevant. However, B.S.'s response to the motion to strike and his reply brief on his motion for summary judgment referred to more evidence outside the record, thus drawing a second motion to strike. The cross-motions for summary judgment and both motions to strike have been fully briefed and are ripe for ruling.
The record consists of B.S.'s Expulsion Hearing transcript ("Tr. at ____"), the affidavit of FWCS's expulsion examiner Judith Platz ("Plate") ("Plate Aff. ¶ ___"), FWCS's Behavior Code ("Behavior Code at ___"), and other documents.
For the following reasons, both motions to strike will be GRANTED, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED, and B.S.'s motion for summary judgment will be DENIED.
Because it is more logical to do so, we will analyze the motions to strike in reverse order.
In their second motion to strike, the Defendants seek to strike any reference to a letter supposedly authored by Dr. Ronald Williams ("Dr.Williams"), or to the allegation that the FWCS school board, on December 9, 2002, amended the student Behavior Code.
The Defendants say that any reference to Dr. Williams's letter , should be stricken because it is not in evidence, and cannot be put in evidence because it would constitute inadmissible hearsay. B.S. apparently concedes the point, so we will grant the motion to this extent. See, e.g., Boyce v. Moore, 314 F.3d 884, 889 (7th Cir.2002).
The Defendants also argue that any references to the recent amendments to the student Behavior Code (see Pl's Reply Br. at 2 n. 2) should be stricken as unsupported by the record, and simply irrelevant.
B.S. contends the modification is relevant because the Defendants by their action have effectively admitted that the "Law Violations" language employed in the Behavior Code was "a bit awkward" and overall demonstrates the strength of his argument. (
We agree with the Defendants that any references to FWCS's modification of the language employed in its disciplinary code is simply irrelevant to the issues presented in this case. After all, B.S. only challenges the Behavior Code as it existed on the day he was expelled. Accordingly, the Defendants' second motion to strike will be granted in full.
Turning now to the Defendants' first motion to strike, they seek to strike any reference to a purported diary of the girl who allegedly performed oral sex on B.S. because there is no evidence such a diary exists. B.S. apparently concedes the point, and therefore the motion will be granted to this extent.
The Defendants also move to strike an email message the girl supposedly sent to an unidentified third party as both unauthenticated and irrelevant. In response, B.S. attempts to authenticate the email by offering both the name and affidavit of the email's recipient. The Defendants, in their reply, do not question this effort to authenticate the email. Indeed, B.S. has offered an acceptable method for authenticating an email message. See generally United States v. Siddiqui 235 F.3d 1318,1322 (11th Cir.2000).
Nevertheless, the Defendants maintain that the email is irrelevant because Platz never considered or relied upon it in reaching her decision to expel B.S.3 Indeed, to the extent the email relates to the state court claim for judicial review, it cannot be considered because it is outside the administrative record. Family Development, Ltd. v. Steuben County Waste Watchers, Inc., 749 N.E.2d 1243, 1256 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) ( ). If, however, the email is being offered to address B.S.'s substantive due process claim, it is clearly irrelevant as it has no relation to FWCS's construction of its Behavior Code. Finally, because Platz, the ultimate decisionmaker, never considered the email, it is irrelevant to whether she accurately assessed the girl's credibility.4
Moreover, if what B.S. is contending is that the Defendants should have disclosed this supposedly exculpatory evidence prior to the expulsion hearing, as we shall see infra, they had no duty to do so. See, e.g., Newsome v. Batavia Local School Dist, 842 F.2d 920, 925 (6th Cir.1988); Craig v. Selma City School Bd., 801 F.Supp. 585, 593 (S.D.Ala.1992).
Accordingly, because B.S. concedes that references to the diary should be stricken and because the email attached to the amended complaint is irrelevant, we will grant the Defendants' first motion to strike.
On October 9, 2002, Cheryl Strader ("Strader"), an assistant principal at Northrop, received a phone call from a concerned parent regarding inappropriate sexual conduct that allegedly occurred on school grounds between several football players and a female student manager. (Tr. at 4.)
Strader immediately questioned the girl, who admitted to consensual sexual encounters on school grounds with several boys (involving, at various times, intercourse, oral sex, and fondling). (Id.) The main concern at present is that one of the boys implicated was B.S., who purportedly received oral sex from the girl in a Northrop locker room. (Tr. at 4-5.)
This led Northrop officials to question each of the boys, and the girl, and on October 10, 2002, B.S. denied to Northrop principal Timon Kendall ("Kendall"), any involvement with the girl. (Id.; see also Platz Aff, Ex. 2)
Subsequently, Strader interviewed B.S. about the allegations, who admitted that he knew that one of the managers of the football team was providing oral sex to the team. (Tr. at 4-5) B.S. then indicated that while he almost allowed the girl to perform oral sex on him in the locker room, he changed his mind before she started. (Id.; see also Platz Aff., Ex. 3.) Later, according to Strader, B.S. recanted his story and claimed the incident never occurred. (Tr. at 5)
Indeed, in a written statement, B.S. claimed no involvement with the girl, and that any allegations to the contrary were merely school yard rumors that surfaced after he was briefly alone with her in a locker room. (Platz Aff., Ex. 2.) In a second written statement, B.S. allowed that the girl had actually approached him in the locker room asking if he wanted to "do something" in the shower area. (Tr. at 5; Platz Aff., Ex. 3.) He claimed that once in the shower area the girl got on her knees and attempted to pull his pants down, but he stopped her and left the locker room. (Id.)
In the course of their investigation, Northrop officials received a statement from another student who wrote that "[B.S.] and [another student] told me that [the girl] gave them oral sex, I don't know if they were joking trying to make her seem real nasty or not but they were two that actually said yes she did." (Tr. at 6; See also, Platz Aff. Exh. 6.) In addition, Judy Delamarter ("Delamarter"), the treasurer at Northrop, offered a statement recounting that she had overheard B.S. tell another implicated student that "[t]hey can't pin it on us because it's her word against ours." (Tr. at 5-6; See also, Platz Aff. 5, 8.)
As a result of its investigation, FWCS sought to expel B.S. through the end of the school year for a violation of Rule 22 of the student Behavior Code, which prohibits inappropriate sexual behavior on school grounds,6 and notified B.S. of the charges against him. After receiving notice of the charges, B.S., with his attorney, appeared at an expulsion hearing before Platz on October 16, 2002; FWCS was represented by Michael Schnelker ("Schnelker"), an assistant principal at Northrop. (Tr. at 1, 3-6.)
At the outset, counsel for B.S. raised three procedural objections: the expulsion hearing was scheduled for only thirty (30) minutes and this was insufficient;7 FWCS was apparently not going to provide him with an opportunity to review the evidence against B.S. prior to the hearing (i.e., various student statements); and B.S. had not received the names of the students who had implicated him. (Tr. at 3, 10.)
Once the hearing proceeded, Schnelker summarized FWCS's investigation and noted that the girl involved had claimed under oath that she performed oral sex on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tun ex rel. Tun v. Fort Wayne Community Schools
...from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." B.S. ex rel. Schneider v. Bd. of School Tr., Fort Wayne Community Schools, 255 F.Supp.2d 891, 897 (N.D.Ind.2003) (citing Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., 305 F.3d 603, 616 (7th Cir.2002)). There is no......
-
Fenje v. Feld
...Cir.2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 940, 121 S.Ct. 2573, 150 L.Ed.2d 737 (2001); B.S. ex rel. Schneider v. Board of School Trustees, Fort Wayne Community Schools, 255 F.Supp.2d 891, 893-94 (N.D.Ind.2003); Uncle Henry's Inc. v. Plaut Consulting Inc., 240 F.Supp.2d 63, 71-72 Rule 56 provides in......
-
Scanlon v. Las Cruces Public Schools
...314 P.2d 894, 898 (1957), and avoiding the costs and complexity of adversarial litigation. B.S. ex rel. Schneider v. Bd. of Sch. Trs., Fort Wayne Comty. Sch., 255 F.Supp.2d 891, 900-01 (N.D.Ind.2003) (mem. & order). In addition to these considerations of cost and efficiency, administrative ......
-
E.K. v. Stampford Bd. of Educ.
...(no due process violation based on admission of student statement without right to cross-examination); B.S. v. Bd. of Schs. Trs., 255 F.Supp.2d 891, 899 (N.D.Ind.2003) (no right to obtain names and cross-examine student witnesses at expulsion hearing). As reasoned by the Sixth Circuit, the ......
-
Table of Cases
...New York., 2014), §47.800 B-523 Table of Cases — B — B.S. ex rel Schneider v. Board of School Trustees, Fort Wayne Community Schools, 255 F.Supp.2d 891 (N.D.Ind., 2003), §20.100 Bachman v. General Motors Corp., 267 Ill.Dec. 125, 776 N.E.2d 262, (2002), §§22.200, 40.100, 40.500 Bader v. Dall......
-
Table of Cases
...33 Mich.App. 574, 190 N.W.2d 357 (1971), §48.201 — B — B.S. ex rel Schneider v. Board of School Trustees, Fort Wayne Community Schools, 255 F.Supp.2d 891 (N.D.Ind., 2003), §20.100 Bachman v. General Motors Corp., 267 Ill.Dec. 125, 776 N.E.2d 262, (2002), §§22.200, 40.100, 40.500 Bader v. Da......
-
Table of Cases
...F.Supp.2d 381 (E.D. New York., 2014), §47.800 — B — B.S. ex rel Schneider v. Board of School Trustees, Fort Wayne Community Schools, 255 F.Supp.2d 891 (N.D.Ind., 2003), §20.100 Bachman v. General Motors Corp., 267 Ill.Dec. 125, 776 N.E.2d 262, (2002), §§22.200, 40.100, 40.500 Bader v. Dalla......
-
Basics of documentary evidence
...from afar is becoming ubiquitous. See generally B.S. ex rel Schneider v. Board of School Trustees, Fort Wayne Community Schools, 255 F.Supp.2d 891 (N.D.Ind., 2003). And, despite its relative newness, it suffers from all of the ailments and objections that have long been endured by tradition......