Casey v. Newport School Committee

Decision Date19 August 1998
Docket NumberC.A. No. 97-297-T.
Citation13 F.Supp.2d 242
PartiesPatricia CASEY and Lochiel MacDonald v. NEWPORT SCHOOL COMMITTEE, City of Newport, Joel Johnson, in his capacity as the Treasurer of the City of Newport, and Dale Henessey, alias, individually and in his capacity as a Newport School Teacher.
CourtRhode Island Supreme Court

Bruce P. Gladstein, Providence, RI, for Plaintiffs.

Neil Patrick Galvin, Palumbo, Galvin & Boyle, Middletown, RI, Marc DeSisto, Kathleen M. Powers, DeSisto Law Offices, Providence, RI, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TORRES, District Judge.

The defendants have moved for summary judgment with respect to claims that they are liable, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for an alleged violation of Lochiel MacDonald's ("MacDonald") constitutional due process rights and for a variety of state law torts based upon both a disciplinary complaint filed against MacDonald by his high school science teacher and the school's response to that complaint.

Because the plaintiffs have failed to establish any basis for their federal due process claim, the motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to that claim; and, all of the related state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Factual Background

During the 1995-96 school year, MacDonald was a freshman at Rogers High School ("Rogers") in Newport, Rhode Island. On a number of occasions, he was disciplined for engaging in disruptive behavior in a science class taught by Dale Henessey ("Henessey") and in a number of other classes as well.

On May 16, 1997, Henessey sent a report to Barry Coofer, the dean of discipline, alleging that MacDonald had threatened him. Pursuant to Rogers' "zero tolerance" policy of automatically referring reports of possible criminal acts to the police, Coofer reported the alleged threats to authorities. The Newport police investigated and were unable to find sufficient evidence to prosecute. Accordingly, no charges ever were filed against MacDonald.

However, after meeting with MacDonald's mother, school officials removed MacDonald from Henessey's class for the remaining five weeks of the school year. During that period, he was individually taught by Dean Coofer, a former science teacher. At the time of his removal, MacDonald's science grade was so low that it would have been virtually impossible for him to achieve a passing grade regardless of his performance during the remainder of the school year and, in fact, he failed the course.

MacDonald's seven-count complaint asserts claims against Henessey, the City of Newport and the Newport School Committee ("School Committee") for alleged violations of MacDonald's constitutional procedural due process rights. In addition, it asserts state law tort claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution and negligent supervision.

The Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is warranted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). An issue is genuine if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is material if it bears direct relation to the legal elements of a claim or defense to the extent that it may affect the outcome of the case. Id. In determining whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists, it is incumbent upon the Court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and to draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 960 F.2d 200, 204 (1st Cir.1992).

In a case such as this, where the nonmovant bears the ultimate burden of proof on the claims at which the motion is directed, the movant may satisfy its burden at the summary judgment stage by producing evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmovant's case or by demonstrating an absence of evidence in the record on file. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); DeNovellis v. Shalala, 124 F.3d 298, 306 (1st Cir.1997). The burden then shifts to the nonmovant, who must demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of material fact that requires trial. Dow v. United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., 1 F.3d 56, 58 (1st Cir.1993). The nonmovant is required to show that there is a factual dispute with respect to each issue which that party must prove in order to win at trial. DeNovellis, 124 F.3d at 306. The test is "whether, as to each essential element [of the nonmovant's claim or defense], there is `sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.'" Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. at 2511).

Discussion
I. The § 1983 Claims

The only federal claims being made are the alleged procedural due process violations asserted, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the City, the School Committee and Henessey. Those claims will be addressed in turn.

A. Municipal Liability

It is hornbook law that a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983, under the theory of respondeat superior, for acts committed by its employees or agents. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2036, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). A municipality can be held vicariously liable only if the constitutional violation at issue results from a policy, ordinance, regulation or decision officially adopted or promulgated by the municipality's authorized officers or from an established custom or practice of the municipality. Id. at 690-91, 98 S.Ct. at 2035-36.

A policy or official decision may consist of action taken by an official having decision-making authority with respect to that action so that the "acts may fairly be said to be those of the municipality." Silva v. Worden, 130 F.3d 26, 31 (1st Cir.1997) (quoting Board of County Comm'rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, ___, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 1388, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997)). Alternatively, conduct may be held to constitute a custom or practice, even though it never was officially approved by the municipality, if it "is so widespread as to have the force of law," Bryan County Comm'rs, 520 U.S. at ___, 117 S.Ct. at 1388, or it is "so well-settled and widespread that the policy making officials of the municipality can be said to have either actual or constructive knowledge of it yet did nothing to end the practice." Bordanaro v. McLeod, 871 F.2d 1151, 1156 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 820, 110 S.Ct. 75, 107 L.Ed.2d 42 (1989).

In this case, the record is utterly devoid of any allegations or evidence that the complaint filed by Henessey or MacDonald's removal from Henessey's science class resulted from any official policy or any custom or practice of either the City or the School Committee. MacDonald fails even to allege that Henessey had authority to act as a decision maker on behalf of either body. Nor has MacDonald presented any evidence as to who made the decision to remove him from Henessey's class or whether that person was an "official[ ] whose acts may fairly be said to be those of the municipality." Silva, 130 F.3d at 31 (quoting Bryan County Comm'rs, 520 U.S. at ___, 117 S.Ct. at 1388).

Evidence regarding the existence of a custom or practice is similarly lacking. The plaintiffs are unable to cite even one similar incident from which a "well-settled and widespread" custom or practice could be inferred. Bordanaro, 871 F.2d at 1156.

In addition, it appears that the School Committee is not a proper party to this action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b) provides that a party's "capacity to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law of the state in which the district court is held" and the Rhode Island Supreme Court has held that, because a school committee is a department of the municipality, the municipality itself is the proper party defendant, not the school committee. Peters v. Jim Walter Door Sales of Tampa, Inc., 525 A.2d 46, 47 (R.I.1987).

B. The Property or Liberty Interest Requirement

In order to succeed on his procedural due process claim, MacDonald must establish that he has been deprived of a constitutionally cognizable property or liberty interest. A constitutionally protected property interest is not created unless there is "a legitimate claim of entitlement" to the benefit in question. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). An "abstract need or desire" for the benefit or the "unilateral expectation" of receiving it are insufficient. Id.

Whether a property interest is constitutionally protected is determined by reference to state law. Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 344, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 2077, 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976). To qualify it must be "recognized by state statute or a legal contract, express or implied, between the state agency and the individual." Marrero-Garcia v. Irizarry, 33 F.3d 117, 121 (1st Cir.1994).

MacDonald contends that his removal from Henessey's class deprived him of his right to a public education. It cannot be disputed that, under Rhode Island law, MacDonald was legally entitled to a public education. See City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40, 57 (R.I.1995); Exeter-West Greenwich Regional Sch. Dist. v. Exeter-West Greenwich Teachers' Assoc., 489 A.2d 1010, 1016 (R.I.1985); see also Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 573-74, 95 S.Ct. 729, 735-36, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975). However, absent a state law provision to the contrary, that right does not include entitlement to particular aspects of the educational program. See Boynton v. Casey, 543 F.Supp. 995, 1001 (D.Me.1982) (entitlement to public education "does not necessarily encompass every facet of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Patrick v. Success Acad. Charter Sch., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • December 14, 2018
    ... ... RELEVANT FACTS ... 196 A. 20162017 SCHOOL YEAR ... 196 B. 20172018 SCHOOL YEAR ... 200 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ... continuing in an integrated co-teaching placement, and asked the Committee on Special Education ("CSE")a New York City DOE committee that handles the ... 18) Casey v. Newport Sch. Comm. , 13 F.Supp.2d 242, 246 (D.R.I. 1998) ("Here, ... ...
  • Walden v. City of Providence
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • July 6, 2007
    ... ... 21; Casey v. Newport Sch. Comm., 13 F.Supp.2d 242, 245 (D.R.I.1998). Instead, ... There, the Senate Committee Report summarizing the provision (which establishes liability for ... ...
  • City of Cent. Falls, Rhode island v. Cent. Falls Teachers' Union, Rhode Island Council 94, Afscme, Afl-Cio Local 1627 (In re City of Cent. Falls, Rhode island)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Rhode Island
    • March 23, 2012
    ... ... Galvin, Corcoran, Peckham, Hayes & Galvin, P.C., Newport, RI, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ... party to a collective bargaining agreement with the Central Falls School District (the School District), whichsuffice it to say for nowruns the ... adopted a home-rule charter that designated the City's school committee as one of the independent boards and commissions responsible for ... Smith, 896 A.2d 49, 53 (R.I.2006); accord Casey v. Newport School Committee, 13 F.Supp.2d 242 (D.R.I.1998) (applying ... ...
  • Claudia C-B v. Board of Trustees of Pioneer Valley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • March 20, 2008
    ... ... BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PIONEER VALLEY PERFORMING ARTS CHARTER SCHOOL, et al., Defendants ... C.A. No. 07-30094-MAP ... United States ... entitlement to particular aspects of the educational program." Casey v. Newport Sch, Comm., 13 F.Supp.2d 242, 246 (D.R.I.1998). See also ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Schoolhouse Property.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 No. 5, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...different from or inferior to that received at his regular public school"). (175.) See, e.g., Casey v. Newport Sch. Comm., 13 F. Supp. 2d 242, 246 (D.R.I. 1998) (holding that the five-week removal of a student from a single class, when the student received alternative instruction in that su......

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