C.H v. Heyward
| Decision Date | 10 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-2390,09-2390 |
| Parties | C.H., by and through her Parents and Guardians Daryl Lewis Hardwick and Priscilla Lea Hardwick, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARTHA HEYWARD, in her individual capacity and in her official capacity as Principal of Latta Middle School; GEORGE H. LIEBENROOD, JR., in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Principal of Latta High School; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LATTA SCHOOL DISTRICT DILLON COUNTY NO. 3, Defendants - Appellees. NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION; SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, Amici Supporting Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cv-01042-TLW)
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Kirk David Lyons, SOUTHERN LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER, INCORPORATED, Black Mountain, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Vinton D. Lide, LIDE & PAULEY, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees.
ON BRIEF: Michael S. Pauley, LIDE & PAULEY, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina; Vernie L. Williams, CHILDS & HALLIGAN, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Francisco M. Negron, Jr., General Counsel, Lisa E. Soronen, Nancy Dinsmore, NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, Alexandria, Virginia; Scott Price, General Counsel, SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, Columbia, South Carolina, for Amici Supporting Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
C.H., by and through her parents and guardians, appeals the summary judgment entered against her on her civil rights claims. For the following reason, we dismiss the appeal and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.
C.H. brought this action for damages and injunctive relief asserting that the defendants violated several of her federal and state constitutional rights by prohibiting her from wearing to school clothing that they determined was in violation of the schools' dress codes.1 Among her claims, she contends that the defendants violated her First Amendment right to free speech by prohibiting her from wearing clothing that (1) displayed the confederate flag and (2) protested the dress codes (the "protest clothing").
The defendants moved for summary judgment on C.H.'s claims to the extent they involve the confederate flag clothing. The district court entered summary judgment in their favor, holding that they did not violate any of C.H.'s constitutional rights by prohibiting her from wearing confederate flag clothing. Hardwick v. Heyward, 674 F.Supp.2d 735 (D.S.C. 2009). Notingthat the defendants had agreed during the pendency of the litigation to permit C.H. to wear the protest clothing, the court stated in its summary judgment order that the protest clothing was "not in dispute" and "not before the Court at this time." Id. at 729 n.3. Because the defendants did not move for summary judgment as to C.H.'s First Amendment claim for damages involving the protest clothing, the court never resolved that claim.2
On appeal, C.H. argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment against her on claims involving confederate flag clothing. She also contends that we must vacate the summary judgment and remand this case in any event because the court did not address her First Amendment damages claim insofar as it relates to the protest clothing.3 In their brief, the defendants address C.H.'s arguments concerning the confederate flag clothing, but they inexplicably do not address her argument that the case must be remanded for the court to consider her First Amendment damages claim involving the protest clothing.
Although the parties have not questioned our jurisdiction, we have "an obligation to verify the existence of appellate jurisdiction before considering the merits of an appeal." Palmer v. City Nat'l Bk., of W.Va., 498 F.3d 236, 240 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied sub nom. City Nat. Bk. of W.Va. v. Dept. of Agric., Farm Serv. Agency, 553 U.S. 1053 (2008). "With few narrow exceptions" that are not present here, "our jurisdiction extends only to 'appeals from... final decisions of the district courts of the United States.'" United States v. Myers, 593 F.3d 338, 344 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1291).
A "final decision" is one that "fully resolve[s] all claims presented to the district court" and leaves "nothing further for the district court to do." Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Beazer East, Inc., 124 F.3d 551, 557 (3d Cir. 1997). In considering whether a decision is "final" under § 1291, "the label used to describe the judicial demand is not controlling, meaning we analyze the substance of the district court's decision, not its label or form." Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 328 F.3d 1212, 1221 (10th Cir. 2003) (). "[W]hen the record clearly indicates that the district court failed to adjudicate the rights and liabilities of all parties, the order is not and cannot be presumed to be final, irrespective of the district court's intent." Witherspoon v. White, 111 F.3d 399, 402 (5th Cir. 1997).
In Stillman v. Travelers Ins. Co., 88 F.3d 911 (11th Cir. 1996), the Eleventh Circuit was presented with a situation similar to this appeal. There, the appellant contended that the district court procedurally erred by granting summary final judgment to the appellee because "there were other issues and defenses which should have survived and the grant of summary judgment should have been only partial." Id. at 912. The Eleventh Circuit found that the entry of summary final judgment was in fact error because it did not adjudicate all of the issues in the case. The Eleventh Circuit explained:
This summary judgment, therefore, is only a partial summary judgment. It is in no sense a final judgment. It is not final as to all the parties or as to any party or as to the whole subject matter of the litigation. Unfortunately for [the appellee], the district court's mistake does not help him because a district court mislabeling a non-final judgment 'final' does not make it so.
Id. at 914 (). Under those circumstances, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.4
We conclude that a similar disposition is compelled here. Although the district court granted summary judgment on C.H.'s confederate flag clothing claims, it has not yet ruled ...
To continue reading
Request your trial