C.G.A. v. Iredell-Statesville Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.

Decision Date05 August 2021
Docket NumberCivil Action 5:20-CV-00192-KDB-DSC
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
PartiesC.G.A. “G.A.”, by and through his parent and guardian R.A., and R.A. individually, Plaintiffs, v. IREDELL-STATESVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, et. al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

David S. Cayer, United States Magistrate Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' “Motion[s] to Dismiss” (documents ##20, 24, 26 and 29) and the parties' briefs and exhibits.

The Motions have been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and are ripe for disposition.

Having fully considered the arguments, the record, and the applicable authority, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part as discussed below.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Accepting the factual allegations of the Amended Complaint as true Plaintiff G.A. is a ten-year-old child with autism and a communication disability. Document #3 ¶ 1. G.A. attended Cloverleaf Elementary School in the Iredell-Statesville School System (ISS), during his first and second-grade years from 2017 to 2019. Id. ¶¶ 32, 34. Defendant Robin Johnson taught G.A. in a special education classroom throughout his first and second-grade years. Id. ¶¶ 57-58, 75.

During G.A.'s first-grade year, Ms. Johnson placed G.A. in a trash can or recycle bin on multiple occasions and told him that “if he acted like trash, [she] would treat him like trash.” Id. ¶¶ 60-61. Ms. Johnson also restrained G.A. on the floor, covering his mouth and nose to prevent him from screaming and breathing. Id. ¶ 62. When G.A.'s mother, R.A., confronted Ms. Johnson about this conduct in February 2019, the teacher told her that this was done to treat G.A.'s “maladaptive behaviors.” Id. ¶ 65.

Later that year, an ISS teacher, Jennifer Bender, witnessed abuse and reported it to Defendant Alicia Cloer, the then-Principal at Cloverleaf Elementary School. Id. ¶¶ 3, 38, 66. Bender reported that Ms. Johnson put G.A. in a trash can on multiple occasions. See id. Cloer did not investigate Bender's claims or “report the abuse to the proper authorities.” Id. ¶¶ 69, 71. Instead, Cloer chose to keep the information within the school system and told Defendants Rhonda McClenahan (Executive Director of Exceptional Children for the ISS), Id. ¶ 37, Brady Johnson (then Superintendent for the ISS), Id. ¶ 35, and Alvera Lesane (then Associate Superintendent of Human Resources for the ISS). Id. ¶ 36.

During G.A.'s second-grade year, Ms. Johnson's emotional and physical abuse intensified and became more frequent. Id. ¶¶ 75-76. In February 2019, G.A. told his mother for the first time that Ms. Johnson placed her hands over his mouth, preventing him from breathing. Id. When R.A. confronted Ms. Johnson about the incident, she claimed it was to prevent G.A. from bothering non-disabled students. Id. R.A. then reported the incident to the new Principal, Defendant Andy Mehall, who failed to report the incident to outside authorities. Id. ¶¶ 82-83.

During the spring of G.A.'s second-grade year, he broke his desk in the midst of a “behavioral meltdown.” Id. ¶ 84. He was told to stand for the remainder of the school day on a tape-marked area on the floor where his desk had been. Id. G.A. came home crying in a wet t-shirt and told his mother about the incident. ¶ 85. R.A. told Mehall, who did not investigate the conduct further. Id. ¶ 86. Ms. Johnson took away G.A.'s access to a desk for the remainder of the year to punish him for his behavior. Id. ¶ 87. Later that year, Ms. Johnson spilled hot grease from her lunch on G.A.'s head, burning his scalp. Id. ¶¶ 88-89.

Both G.A. and Ms. Johnson were relocated after G.A.'s second-grade year. Id. ¶¶ 91, 93. The Board moved Ms. Johnson to a class of mostly non-verbal preschool students “who presumably were unable to verify the abuse.” Id. ¶ 91. G.A. was moved to ISS' other school “for students with behavior issues, the Pressly School.” Id. ¶ 93. A 2018 video previously captured a school resource officer taunting and holding down an elementary-aged student with autism at the Pressly School. Id. ¶ 78.

During G.A.'s third-grade year, other students told their parents that Ms. Johnson had put them in a trash can or recycling bin. Id. ¶ 95. One of those parents told Ryan Feemster, a therapist with Children's Hope Alliance who worked with students at the Pressly School. Id. ¶ 97. Feemster then conducted his own investigation, and former students confirmed the allegations of abuse. Id. ¶ 98. Feemster reported his investigation to the Iredell County Sheriff's Department “which began an investigation and notified R.A.” Document #31 at 4; see Document #3 ¶ 99. After being alerted to the Sheriff's investigation, the Board kept G.A. from attending school on a daily basis. Document #3 ¶¶ 100-101. An Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) team restricted G.A.'s access to school to two hours and later to one hour each week because of his maladaptive behaviors. Id. ¶¶ 100-101.

On October 17, 2019, the Sheriff obtained a warrant for Ms. Johnson's arrest for the abuse of G.A. Id. ¶ 102. Five days later, the School Board “reported to the media it had placed Ms. [] Johnson on paid administrative leave pending an investigation.” Document #31 at 4. Ms. Johnson ultimately pled guilty to two counts of assault on a handicapped person and was placed on supervised probation for eighteen months. Document #3 ¶¶ 104, 114. The Board told R.A. that Ms. Johnson was fired but she continued to work for the ISS “as a special educator until the original complaint was filed in this case.” Id. ¶¶ 108, 111, 114.

Plaintiffs bring nine causes of action: (1) discrimination based on a disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against the Board, (2) discrimination based on a disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against the Board, (3) Section 1983 claims for substantive due process violations against the Board, Lesane, Mr. Johnson, Cloer, Mehall, and Ms. Johnson, (4) failure to train against the Board, Lesane, Mr. Johnson, Cloer, Mehall, and McClenahan, (5) equal protection violations against the Board, and (6) conspiracy against the Board, Lesane, Mr. Johnson, Cloer, Mehall, and McClenahan, as well as the state law claims for (7) negligence, (8) negligent infliction of emotional distress against all Defendants, and (9) false imprisonment against Ms. Johnson.

Defendants McClenahan, Cloer, Mehall, and Lesane bring a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule (12)(b)(1), personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), and failure to state a claim under 12(b)(6) as to all claims brought against them. Document #26 at 1. Defendant Board brings a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim as to all claims brought against it. Document #20 at 1-2. Defendant Mr. Johnson brings a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim as to all the claims brought against him. Document #24 at 1-2. Defendant Ms. Johnson brings a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim as to all claims brought against her. Document #29 at 1. Ms. Johnson alleges that the federal law claims should be dismissed, and that this Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1967. Id. at 2.

II. DISCUSSION
A. Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter and Personal Jurisdiction

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), a claim may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The presence of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue the court must determine before reaching the merits of a case. Jones v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 192 F.3d 417, 422 (4th Cir. 1999). The plaintiff has the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991). The district court should grant a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss “only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Id. Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) is properly subject to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). See, e.g., M.M. ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523, 536 (4th Cir. 2002). Under Rule 12(b)(2), Plaintiff bears the burden to establish personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673, 676 (4th Cir. 1989).

Defendants McClenahan, Cloer, Mehall, and Lesane all worked in North Carolina and directed their conduct towards the state. Document #3 ¶¶ 36-39. The Court has personal jurisdiction over these Defendants. The Court has federal question and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the Motions to Dismiss for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction be denied.

B. Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
1. Standard of Review

In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “the court should accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and should view the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). The plaintiff's [f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). [O]nce a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT