B.T. v. David, CIV-05-1165 JB/RLP.

• Citation: 557 F.Supp.2d 1262
• Decision Date: 31 July 2007
• Docket Number: No. CIV-05-1165 JB/RLP.,CIV-05-1165 JB/RLP.
• Parties: B.T., a minor child, by and through his father, legal guardian, and next friend, G.T., Plaintiff, v. Michael J. DAVIS, in his individual capacity, Marilyn Scargall, in her individual capacity, Willie Brown, in his individual capacity, and John Does V, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

Page 1262

557 F.Supp.2d 1262

B.T., a minor child, by and through his father, legal guardian, and next friend, G.T., Plaintiff, v. Michael J. DAVIS, in his individual capacity, Marilyn Scargall, in her individual capacity, Willie Brown, in his individual capacity, and John Does V, Defendants.

No. CIV-05-1165 JB/RLP.

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

July 31, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Sylvia F. LaMar, Debra D. Poulin, Santa Fe, NM, and Nancy L. Simmons, The Law Offices of Nancy L. Simmons, P.C., Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff.

Stephen S. Hamilton, Emma R. Brittain, Holly Agajanian, Montgomery & Andrews P.A., Santa Fe, NM, for Defendants', New Mexico Public Education Department, Michael J. Davis; Willie Brown, and Marilyn Scargall.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity, filed April 17, 2007 (Doc. 86). The primary issue is whether the Court should grant Defendants Michael Davis, Marilyn Scargall, and Willie Brown summary judgment because qualified immunity bars the remaining claims against them. Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff B.T., a minor child, has not established genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Defendants' actions violated his constitutional rights or that clearly established law put the Defendants on notice that their conduct constituted a violation of his constitutional rights, the Court will grant the Defendants' motion and dismiss B.T.'s claims.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

During the time period between 1998 and 2000, Davis was the Superintendent of Public Instruction in the New Mexico State Department of Education ("SDE"). See Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity, filed April 17, 2007 (Doc. 87)("Defendants' Memorandum"), Exhibit A, Affidavit of Willie R. Brown in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ¶ 2, at 1 ("Brown Affidavit"); Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity Filed April 17, 2007, Docket No. 86 ¶ 3, at 5, filed May 22, 2007 (Doc. 96)("B.T.'s Response"). Scargall was the Director of the SDE's Professional Licensure Unit ("PLU") during this time. See Brown Affidavit 112, at 1; B.T.'s Response 111, at 5. Brown was the Senior Attorney for the PLU. See Brown Affidavit 112, at 1; B.T.'s Response 112, at 5.

From September 1998 through March 1999, Brown conducted an investigation into allegations that Defendant Ernest Dominguez had inappropriately touched several male students while employed as a teacher at the Granger Elementary School ("Granger") in Tucumcari, New Mexico.¹ See Brown Affidavit ¶¶ 3-4, at 1-2; B.T.'s Response ¶¶ 14-5, at 5. At the conclusion of his investigation, Brown prepared a report in the form of a Memorandum to File. See Brown Affidavit, Exhibit 1, Report of Investigation ("Brown's Report"); B.T.'s Response ¶¶ 6, 8, at 5-6. In Brown's elevenpage, single-spaced report, he detailed the allegations against Dominguez and his investigation of these allegations, including challenges he faced getting documents and information from Tucumcari officials and the local District Attorney's Office. In the conclusion to this report, Brown explained that, "[w]hile such allegations ... are plausible and generate immediate concern for students' safey [sic], the inability to corroborate any allegation coupled with the numerous contradictions have made it difficult to formulate a case sufficient to support licensure charges against Ernest Dominguez." Brown's Report at 10. Brown concluded that, "[i]f Ernest Dominguez did in fact inappropriately touch boys while employed as a teacher in Tucumcari Schools, this office is unable to currently make that assertion or to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence." Id. at 11.

In November 1998, Dominguez resigned from his position at Granger pursuant to a settlement that contained a confidentiality agreement between himself and Tucumcari Public Schools ("TPS"). See id. at 3; B.T.'s Response ¶ 9, at 6. After resigning from his position with TPS, Dominguez obtained employment with the Santa Fe Public School District and began teaching at Salazar Elementary School ("Salazar") in the fall of 1999. See Defendants' Memorandum ¶ 10, at 3; B.T.'s Response ¶ 10, at 6.

Dominguez' state-issued teaching license expired in June 2000. See Brown Affidavit ¶ 10, at 2. In a sworn application for renewal of his teaching license, dated June 7, 2000, Dominguez stated that he had not "ever resigned, entered into a settlement agreement, or otherwise left employment as a result of alleged misconduct." B.T.'s Response, Exhibit 9, Application for Continuing Licensure, Question 4 at 2 ("Renewal Application"). At the time, it was standard procedure in the PLU to assume the veracity of an applicant's sworn statements. See Brown Affidavit ¶ 12, at 3; B.T.'s Response ¶ 13, at 7. Renewal applications were only submitted for further investigation when an applicant indicated that he had a history of disciplinary proceedings, criminal convictions, had entered into a settlement agreement, or had engaged in some other behavior that might make licensing inappropriate. See Brown Affidavit ¶ 13, at 3; B.T.'s Response ¶ 13, at 7. The PLU renewed Dominguez' teaching license based on the June 7, 2000 application. See Brown Affidavit ¶ 17, at 3; B.T.'s Response ¶ 14, at 7.

Dominguez continued to teach at Salazar through the fall of 2003. See Defendants' Memorandum ¶ 17, at 4; B.T.'s Response ¶ 17, at 8. The alleged injuries that constitute the basis of this lawsuit involve allegations that Dominguez inappropriately touched B.T. in 2001 through 2003 while B.T. was a student at Salazar. See Defendants' Memorandum ¶ 20, at 5; B.T.'s Response ¶ 20, at 8.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

B.T. filed the original Complaint in this action on November 4, 2005, naming, among others, Davis, Scargall, and Brown as Defendants. See Complaint for Civil Rights Violations, Negligence, Sexual Assault, Harassment, Negligent Misrepresentation, Hiring and Retention, Tort Claims, and for Monetary Damages and other Affirmative Relief, filed November 4, 2005 (Doc. 1). B.T. filed his First Amended Complaint on February 1, 2006, again naming Davis, Scargall, and Brown. See First Amended Complaint, filed February 1, 2006 (Doc. 4). On March 21, 2006, B.T. voluntarily dismissed Davis from the case pursuant to rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without having served him with either the original the First Amended Complaint. See Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Michael J. Davis, filed March 21, 2006 (Doc. 23). B.T. represents that, since that date, he has obtained additional information, including copies of correspondence from Davis, indicating that Davis participated in the decision to grant or renew Dominguez' New Mexico state teaching license. See Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Second Amend[ed] Complaint ¶ 4, at 2, filed August 22, 2006 (Doc. 65)("Motion to Amend").

Brown and Scargall moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on April 21, 2006. See Motion to Dismiss Defendants Marilyn Scargall and Willie Brown, filed April 21, 2006 (Doc. 36). On July 18, 2006, the parties advised the Court that B.T. and all Defendants, with the exception of Scargall and Brown, successfully settled all disputes among them at a mediation on July 14, 2006. See Letter from Nancy L. Simmons to the Court at 1 (dated July 18, 2006), filed July 18, 2006 (Doc. 55). Scargall and Brown declined to participate in the mediation. See id.

The Court held a hearing on Scargall's and Brown's motion to dismiss on August 4, 2006. See Clerk's Minutes, filed August 22, 2006 (Doc. 66). At that hearing, B.T.'s counsel argued that prosecutorial immunity, which the Defendants contended applied to Brown's investigation of the charges against Dominguez, did not apply to the PLU's decision in 2000 to renew Dominguez' teaching license. See Transcript of Hearing at 20:1-18 (Simmons)(taken August 4, 2006)("Aug. 4, 2006 Transcript").² The Court, in response to what it perceived as a new argument to salvage B.T.'s case, indicated, and B.T.'s counsel agreed, that B.T. might wish to amend his Complaint to state more clearly his theory regarding allegations that the Defendants wrongfully granted or renewed Dominguez' teaching license in 2000. See Motion to Amend ¶ 2, at 2; Aug. 4, 2006 Transcript at 32:2-4 (Court).

On March 12, 2007, the Court filed its Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Scargall's and Brown's motion to dismiss in part and denying the motion in part. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed March 12, 2007 (Doc. 80). In its March 12, 2007 opinion, the Court dismissed B.T.'s claims against Scargall and Brown to the extent that they failed to initiate license revocation procedures against Dominguez based on the PLU's allegedly inadequate investigation into the charges involving his conduct at Granger, because absolute prosecutorial immunity bars those claims. See id. at 23. The Court also reiterated that, to the extent that B.T.'s claims arise from Dominguez' application for a renewed teacher's license, B.T. may wish to amend his complaint to clarify his theory. See id.

B.T. filed his Second Amended Complaint on March 14, 2007. See Second Amended Complaint, filed March 14, 2007 (Doc. 82)("Complaint"). B.T.'s Complaint names Davis, Scargall, Brown, and John Does I-V as Defendants. See id. at 1. B.T. states that, upon information and belief, John Does I through V are SDE employees who were involved in the decision to "grant Dominguez a [teaching] license or to renew his license, without either addressing the misleading statements in his application and/or prior allegations of child molestation, or revealing to prospective school district employers that...