Boim v. Fulton County School Dist.

• Decision Date: 31 July 2007
• Docket Number: No. 06-14706.,No. 06-14732.,06-14706.,06-14732.
• Citation: Boim v. Fulton County School Dist., 494 F.3d 978 (11th Cir. 2007)
• Parties: David BOIM, Kimberly Boim, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, doing business as Fulton County Public Schools, James Wilson, Superintendent of Fulton County Board of Education, Edward J. Spurka, As Principal of Roswell High School, all in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees. Rachel Boim, by and through her Conservator, Nancy Boim, Nancy Boim, as Conservator of Rachel Boim, a Minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Fulton County School District, doing business as Fulton County Public Schools, James Wilson, Superintendent of Fulton County Board of Education, Edward J. Spurka, As Principal of Roswell High School, all in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

494 F.3d 978

David BOIM, Kimberly Boim, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, doing business as Fulton County Public Schools, James Wilson, Superintendent of Fulton County Board of Education, Edward J. Spurka, As Principal of Roswell High School, all in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

Rachel Boim, by and through her Conservator, Nancy Boim, Nancy Boim, as Conservator of Rachel Boim, a Minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.Fulton County School District, doing business as Fulton County Public Schools, James Wilson, Superintendent of Fulton County Board of Education, Edward J. Spurka, As Principal of Roswell High School, all in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-14706.

No. 06-14732.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 31, 2007.

Allan L. Galbraith, Don C. Keenan, The Keenan Law Firm, Atlanta, GA, for the Boims.

Eric A. Brewton, Carol A. Callaway, Brock, Clay & Calhoun, P.C., Marietta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and LIMBAUGH,^*District Judge.

DUBINA, Circuit Judge:

This is a school speech case.¹On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted the defendants' motions and denied the plaintiffs' motions.The plaintiffs then perfected their appeals.

I.BACKGROUND

In October 2003, Rachel Boim("Rachel") was a student at Roswell High School ("RHS") in the Fulton County School District.During her fifth period art class, Rachel gave a notebook of hers to a male student seated next to her.The art class teacher, Travis Carr("Carr"), observed the student writing in the notebook, which Carr did not then know belonged to Rachel.Carr instructed the student to put the notebook away and resume his class work.About five minutes later, Carr noticed the notebook in the student's lap again.Carr asked the student for the notebook, but instead the student passed the notebook back to Rachel.Carr asked Rachel for the notebook, and she responded, "no," and stated that Carr first would have to say please.Rachel then placed the notebook in her book bag, removed a different notebook, and handed it to Carr.Carr noticed the switch.He persisted, and eventually Rachel gave him the notebook.

Later, after class, Carr looked through the multi-subject notebook and read the following entry, which was located behind a divider labeled "Dream":²

As I walk to school from my sisters[sic] car my stomach ties itself in nots.[sic] I have nervousness tingeling [sic] up and down my spine and my heart races.No one knows what is going to happen.I have the gun hidden in my pocket.I cross the lawn and hed [sic] to my locker on A hall.Smiling sweetly to my friends hoping they dont [sic] notice the cold sweat that has developed on my forhead [sic].Im [sic] walking up to the front office when the bell rings for class to start.So afraid that I think I might pass out.I ask if my mother dropped off a book I need.No.My first to [sic] classes pass by my heart thumping so hard Im [sic] afraid every one can hear it.Constantly I can feel the gun in my pocket. 3rd peroid [sic], 4th, 5th then 6th peroid [sic] my time is comming [sic].I enter the class room my face pale.My stomach has tied itself in so many knots its [sic] doubtful I will ever be able to untie them.Then he starts taking role [sic].Yes, my math teacher.I lothe [sic] him with every bone in my body.Why?I dont [sic] know.This is it.I stand up and pull the gun from my pocket.BANG the force blows him back and every one in the class sits there in shock.BANG he falls to the floor and some one [sic] lets out an ear piercing scream.Shaking I put the gun in my pocket and run from the room.By now the school police officer is running after me.Easy I can out run him.Out the doors, almost to the car.I can get away.BANG this time a shot was fired at me.I turn just in time to see the bullet rushing at me, almost like its [sic] in slow motion.Then, the bell rings, I pick my head off my desk, shake my head and gather up my books off to my next class.

Boim v. Fulton County Sch. Dist.,No. 1:05-CV-2836-MHS, slip op. at 2-3(N.D. Ga.Aug. 1, 2006).

Shortly after school ended that day, Carr spoke with John Coen("Coen") about Rachel's narrative.Coen, a school administrative assistant in charge of disciplinary matters, requested that Carr bring him the notebook the following morning.The next day, Coen reviewed the narrative and became concerned that it was "planning in disguise as a dream."(Tr. of Admin. Disciplinary Hr'gat 31("Tr.").)He consulted with the school's resource officer, i.e., the school's police officer.The officer, James Young("Young"), also was concerned about the narrative's school setting and violent nature.According to his testimony at the administrative hearing, he became especially concerned after discovering that Rachel's sixth period class was math and her teacher was a man.

Early in the day following Carr's discovery of the writing, after Coen and Young had discussed their concerns with each other, Young removed Rachel from her second period class and escorted her to RHS's administrative offices.School officials contacted Rachel's parents, and Coen and Young met with Rachel and her parents to discuss the incident.Rachel admitted that the notebook and the relevant writing were hers but dismissed the narrative as merely a piece of creative fiction.Her parents supported her and dismissed any notion that Rachel's narrative evidenced an intent to harm anyone.RHS principal Edward J. Spurka("Spurka") also participated in the meeting, though the extent of Spurka's participation is not clear from the record.At the end of the meeting, the administrators sent Rachel home.

Concerned primarily about the threatening undertones of Rachel's narrative in light of the massacre that occurred at Columbine High School in Colorado, the much more local shooting that occurred at Heritage High School in Conyers, Georgia, and terrorism following the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, Spurka decided that further investigation was necessary to determine whether Rachel had violated any school rules.Ultimately, Spurka, in collaboration with a team of school administrators and after consulting with Rachel's sixth period math teacher, who testified that he was "shocked" by the writing, felt "threatened," and was uncomfortable with the idea of having Rachel in his class (Tr.at 22-23), determined that Rachel had violated three school rules: Rule JD 4(iii)(threat of bodily harm); Rule JD 10 (disregard of school rules, directions, or commands); and Rule JD 17 (disrespectful conduct).Of greatest relevance to this appeal is Rule JD 4(iii), which the parties stipulate states as follows:

A student shall not attempt to cause physical injury, threaten bodily harm, or behave in such a way as could reasonably cause physical injury to a school employee: (a) on the school grounds at any time; (b) off the school grounds at a school sponsored activity, function or event; or (c) en route to and from school or school sponsored activity.

Spurka suspended Rachel for 10 days beginning October 8th.He also recommended that she be expelled from RHS but deferred that decision to an independent arbiter, who later conducted a disciplinary hearing.After receiving evidence and hearing testimony, the hearing officer agreed with Spurka's recommendation and expelled Rachel.The district superintendent stayed Rachel's expulsion pending appeal to the Fulton County Board of Education("BOE"), which affirmed the hearing officer's decision and Rachel's suspension but overturned the expulsion.Thus, Rachel was not expelled from RHS, and she did not appeal the BOE's decision.

Approximately two years later, Nancy Boim, on Rachel's behalf, and Rachel's parents filed the underlying lawsuits, which the defendants later removed from State court to federal district court.The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and denied the Boims' motions for partial summary judgment after determining that the defendants' actions did not violate Rachel's rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

II.ISSUES

(1) Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the basis that Rachel's suspension did not violate her First Amendment rights.

(2) Whether the district court erred in concluding that Rachel was not entitled to any injunctive relief requiring the defendants to expunge her records of negative documentation relating to her suspension.

III.STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.See, e.g., Fin. Sec. Assurance, Inc. v. Stephens, Inc.,450 F.3d 1257, 1269(11th Cir.2006).Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2006).

We review a district court's denial of injunctive relief for an abuse of discretion, though we review de novothe district court's relevant legal conclusions.Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc. v. Brandt,131 F.3d 1001, 1003(11th Cir.1997).

IV.DISCUSSION

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District,393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731(1969), the United States Supreme Court made clear that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."Id. at 506, 89 S.Ct. at 736.The Court later held, nevertheless, that "the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings,"Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser,478 U.S. 675, 682, 106 S.Ct. 3159, 3164, 92 L.Ed.2d 549(198...