C.S. v. Couch

Decision Date28 December 2011
Docket NumberCause No. 1:10–CV–231.
Citation282 Ed. Law Rep. 174,843 F.Supp.2d 894
PartiesC.S., Plaintiff, v. Austin COUCH, Jerry Lange, Nicole Singer, and Smith–Green Community Schools Corporation, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

David W. Weigle, David W. Weigle & Associates, Hammond, IN, Eric L. Kirschner, Green & Kuchel PC, Schererville, IN, Jeffrey A. Harkin, Attorney at Law, Hammond, IN, for Plaintiff.

Eric M. Wilkins, Linda A. Polley, Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP, Benjamin D. Ice, Murphy Law Group, Fort Wayne, IN, W. Erik Weber, Mefford Weber and Blythe Pc, Auburn, IN, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

ROGER B. COSBEY, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises out of a series of allegedly discriminatory school incidents that the Plaintiff, C.S., a minor, believes were perpetuated against him because of his race. Based on these events, C.S., through his next friend and Parents, advances various federal claims against the Smith–Green Community Schools Corporation (Smith–Green) and several of its administrators, individual Defendants Austin Couch, Jerry Lange, and Nicole Singer (collectively, Defendants).1 On September 9, 2011, Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of C.S.'s claims. (Docket # 24.) C.S. filed his response in opposition on November 4, 2011 (Docket # 32), and Defendants replied on November 18, 2011 (Docket # 35). As such, the motion is now ripe for ruling. For the following reasons, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED as to all of C.S.'s claims.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

In his Complaint, C.S. brought the following federal claims against Defendants: (1) a racially hostile environment claim under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; (2) a disparate discipline claim under Title VI; (3) an equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment; (4) a due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment; and (5) a false arrest claim under the Fourth Amendment. (Compl. Counts I–IV.) Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment attacking each of these claims. ( See Docket # 24, 25.) C.S.'s response, however, addresses only the Title VI racially hostile environment claim ( see Pl.'s Resp. 4–6) and adds a new allegation that Defendants violated C.S.'s Miranda rights under the Fifth Amendment ( see Pl.'s Resp. 6–8). Any issues raised in the summary judgment motion that are not responded to by the non-moving party are deemed abandoned. SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); Palmer v. Marion Cnty., 327 F.3d 588, 597–98 (7th Cir.2003) (collecting cases). Therefore, C.S. is deemed to have abandoned the following claims: (1) the Title VI disparate discipline claim; (2) the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim; (3) the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim; and (4) the Fourth Amendment false arrest claim.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND3

C.S. is a multi-racial student who attended Smith–Green schools until his expulsion during his freshmen year on April 10, 2009. (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 10–11; see C.S. Dep. 34.) Smith–Green operates Churubusco Middle School and Churubusco High School 4 as well as Churubusco Elementary School. (Compl. ¶ 5.)

During the 20082009 academic year, C.S. was a freshman at Churubusco High School. (C.S. Dep. 10, 34; Couch Dep. 9; Darnell Aff. Ex. 2.) Throughout that same time period, Austin Couch was the principal of Churubusco High School (Compl. ¶ 6; see Couch Dep. 5), Jerry Lange was an assistant principal at Churubusco High School (Lange Dep. 12–13), and Nicole Singer was the principal of Churubusco Elementary School (Singer Dep. 13).

C.S. alleges several different incidents of racial harassment dating back to the fall of 2004 and continuing through his expulsion in April 2009. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 14; Pl.'s Answers to Defs.' Interrog. No. 5.) The first alleged incident occurred in the fall of 2004, when another student called C.S. “Nigger.” (C.S. Dep. 19; Compl. ¶ 12(a); Pl.'s Answers to Defs.' Interrog. No. 5.) While C.S. testified that he did not remember this event (C.S. Dep. 19–20), his mother, T.L., remembered it and stated that she talked to C.S.'s teacher about the incident and that the student's parents brought him to their home (T.L. Dep. 19–20).5 During the 2005 to 2006 school year, when C.S. was in sixth grade, this same student drew a picture of C.S. getting shot in the head. (C.S. Dep. 20; Compl. ¶ 12(a).) C.S. never saw this picture, but his teacher saw it and informed C.S. (C.S. Dep. 21.) According to C.S., his teacher contacted both the principal and the student's parents, and the student was subsequently suspended. (C.S. Dep. 21–22.) As far as C.S. knew, the picture did not contain any racial epithet. (C.S. Dep. 22.)

When C.S. was in seventh grade, during the 2006 to 2007 school year, he began to have problems with racial comments on the football field from an eighth grader, J.L. (C.S. Dep. 22–23, 25; T.L. Dep. 45–46; Compl. ¶ 12(b).) Two football coaches were informed of this racial harassment 6 (C.S. Dep. 24; T.L. Dep. 45; Pl.'s Answers to Defs.' Interrog. No. 5), but C.S. was not aware of the coach doing anything about it (C.S. Dep. 24). Other than telling the coach one time, C.S. did not report the comments on the football field to anyone else. (C.S. Dep. 24.)

The following school year (2007 to 2008), when C.S. was in eighth grade, this same student, J.L., threatened to kill C.S. on his birthday after instructing his friends to beat C.S. up in the bathroom.7 (C.S. Dep. 25–27; Compl. ¶ 12(b)-(c).) C.S. reported this threat to the middle school principal. (C.S. Dep. 21.) While C.S. did not know if J.L. was disciplined for this, T.L. testified that she believed J.L. was suspended for three days because of this threat. (T.L. Dep. 45, 48.) The bathroom incident involved C.S. being called “Nigger” and being thrown into a bathroom stall where he hit his head on a radiator. (C.S. Dep. 27–28; T.L. Dep. 52.) C.S. reported this incident to the school nurse and the principal, and he thought the students responsible were suspended. (C.S. Dep. 29–30.) That same school year, on May 15, 2007, another student, S.W., allegedly called C.S. “Nigger” and punched him in the face without warning. (C.S. Dep. 32.) This event may have been reported to the school nurse and “unknown representatives of the school.” ( See Pl.'s Answers to Defs.' Interrog. No. 5.)

Some time in 2008, another student called C.S. “Nigger.” (Pl.'s Answers to Defs.' Interrog. No. 5.) It is unknown whether this incident was reported or if there was punishment. (Pl.'s Answers to Defs.' Interrog. No. 5.) During the 20082009 school year, a fight between S.W. and C.S. occurred in Phil Allen's agricultural classroom.8 (Compl. ¶ 12(e); C.S. Dep. 34; Allen Dep. 22–23; Pl.'s Answers to Defs.' Interrog. No. 5.) According to C.S., the incident started when a third student threw a piece of paper that hit S.W., and S.W., thinking C.S. had thrown the paper, got up, punched C.S. in the face, and threw him into a filing cabinet. (C.S. Dep. 34; see Pl.'s Answers to Defs.' Interrog. No. 5.) C.S. agreed that the reason S.W. punched him was because of his mistaken belief that C.S. had thrown the paper, not because of C.S.'s race. (C.S. Dep. 34–35.) Allen also testified about the incident in his classroom, stating that the fight occurred when C.S. apparently said something to S.W., that both kids were on opposite sides of the room, and that S.W. then went after C.S. for what was said. (Allen Dep. 23.) Allen stated that a few punches were thrown, but he was not sure that any of them connected, and that he did not hear S.W. call C.S. any racial epithet. (Allen Dep. 23.) Once the fight was broken up, Allen sent S.W. to the office, then waited about five minutes before sending C.S. (Allen Dep. 23.)

Shortly after the fight in Allen's classroom, in January or February 2009, another student told C.S. to “go back to Africa” while in the classroom, then, when C.S. went to the bathroom, the other student turned the lights out and said to C.S., “Now I can't find you.” (C.S. Dep. 35–36; Pl.'s Answers to Defs.' Interrog. No. 5; Compl. ¶ 12(f).) C.S. indicated that he did not report this incident to anyone and that the school did not know about it. (C.S. Dep. 36–37, 61–62.)

On February 10, 2009, C.S. was presented with a “hate” note by a student picturing a Confederate flag underneath of which read, “Niggers beware,” and “Niggers must be hung,” with a stick figure showing an African–American hanging from a tree. (C.S. Dep. 37–38; Lange Dep. 58; Pl.'s Answers to Defs.' Interrog. No. 5; Compl. ¶ 12(g).) Lange, an assistant principal, became aware of this incident, and the student responsible for the note was suspended pending expulsion; he was subsequently allowed to return on a waiver of due process. (Lange Dep. 58–59.)

T.L. met with school officials regarding the alleged incidents of racial harassment and violence. (Compl. ¶ 13.) After C.S. was assaulted in the bathroom in April 2007, T.L. met with the middle school principal to institute a diversity program in the Churubusco schools. (Compl. ¶ 13; Davis Dep. 32; T.L. Dep. 53.) While a diversity program was not implemented at that time, it was later, in February of 2009, in the middle school.9 (Davis Dep. 32; Couch Dep. 16; see Defs.' Answer to Pl.'s Interrog. No. 10.) On December 18, 2008, both of C.S.'s parents expressed their concern about racial discrimination and the racial culture of the school to Couch and Lange. 10(Compl. ¶ 13; T.L. Dep. 89; Couch Dep. 15.)

Also during the 20082009 school year, C.S. was disciplined several times for violating the “Code of Conduct” set forth in the Churubusco High School Student Handbook, which was given to every student before the start of the year. (Lange Aff. ¶¶ 6–7.) C.S.'s first significant discipline occurred as a result of a series of behavior over several days, from December 4, 2008, to December 8, 2008, culminating in an all day “RS” on December 9, 2008...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Carolina v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • April 25, 2013
    ...that had the principal been acting on behalf of law enforcement, the consideration would have been different. C.S. v. Couch, 843 F.Supp.2d 894, 918–19 (N.D.Ind.2011). Thus the “law enforcement” requirement in Miranda may be contextual, or more related to function than to title. The second t......
  • Zeno v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • December 3, 2012
    ...the jury surely could have concluded that the harassment was severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive. See C.S. v. Couch, 843 F.Supp.2d 894, 908 (N.D.Ind.2011) (ten instances of racial slurs and violence over four-and-a-half years could be perceived as sufficiently severe); see also Dav......
  • United States ex rel. Coleman v. Chandler
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • February 16, 2012
  • Anderson v. Nebrasks
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • September 12, 2018
    ...v. Duncan, 923 F. Supp. 2d 256, 261 (D.D.C. 2013), aff'd, No. 13-5135, 2013 WL 6222987 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 14, 2013); C.S. v. Couch, 843 F. Supp. 2d 894, 905 n.14 (N.D. Ind. 2011); Karlen ex rel. J.K. v. Westport Bd. of Educ., 638 F. Supp. 2d 293, 302 (D. Conn. 2009); Washington v. Jackson Stat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CRIMINOLOGY: "DEFUND THE (SCHOOL) POLICE"? BRINGING DATA TO KEY SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE CLAIMS.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 111 No. 3, June 2021
    • June 22, 2021
    ...v. State, 245 S.W.3d 356, 367-69 (Tenn. 2008); .see also Gupta-Kagan, supra note 102, at 2024-30. (119) See. e.g., C.S. v. Couch, 843 F. Supp. 2d 894, 917-20 (N.D. Ind. 2011); Boynton v. Casey, 543 F. Supp. 995, 997 (D. Me. (120) See, e.g., S.E. v. Grant Cnty. Bd. of Educ, 544 F.3d 633, 640......

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