Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 08 November 2011
• Docket Number: No. C 10–02745 JW.,C 10–02745 JW.
• Parties: Dianna DARIANO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCH. DIST., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

278 Ed. Law Rep. 267

822 F.Supp.2d 1037

Dianna DARIANO, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCH. DIST., et al., Defendants.

No. C 10–02745 JW.

United States District Court, N.D. California,San Francisco Division.

Nov. 8, 2011.

William Joseph Becker, Jr., The Becker Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA, Robert J. Muise, Thomas More Law Center, Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiffs.

Mark S. Posard, Alyson Cabrera, Gordon & Rees LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JAMES WARE, Chief Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs ¹ bring this action against Morgan Hill Unified School District (“Morgan Hill”) and certain individuals ² (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and violations of their right to Freedom of Expression under the California Constitution, Art. I., § 2. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated their federal and state constitutional rights to freedom of expression, due process, and equal protection by disallowing them from wearing American flag shirts in a public high school on Cinco de Mayo Day.

Presently before the Court are: (1) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to all claims; ³ and (2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment as to all claims.⁴ The Court conducted a hearing on October 3, 2011. Based on the papers submitted to date and oral argument, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion and DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

A detailed description of the allegations in this case can be found in the Court's February 17, 2011 Order.⁵ The Court reviews the undisputed facts and procedural history relevant to resolving these Motions.

A. Undisputed Facts

Plaintiffs are three students who attended Live Oak High School at the time the events at issue occurred.⁶ Live Oak High School (“Live Oak”) is a high school within the Morgan Hill Unified School District, a public school district in the state of California.⁷ On May 5, 2010, Plaintiffs and two other students wore clothing including images of the American flag to school at Live Oak. (Answer ¶ 14.) Defendant Rodriguez was an assistant principal at Live Oak on that date. ( Id. ¶ 13.) During “brunch break,” which occurs between 10:00 a.m. and 10:15 a.m. every day, Defendant Rodriguez asked Plaintiffs to either remove their shirts or turn them inside out. (Complaint ¶¶ 18–20; Answer ¶ 20.) When Plaintiffs refused to comply with this request, Defendant Rodriguez asked Plaintiffs to come to his office. (Answer ¶ 20.) Plaintiffs complied with this request. ( Id. ¶ 23.)

Shortly thereafter Dianna Dariano, the mother of Plaintiff M.D., arrived at the school office. (Answer ¶ 26.) Immediately thereafter, Defendant Boden met with Plaintiffs and the two other students in a conference room in the school's office. ( Id. ¶ 28.) The students remained in the office for approximately ninety minutes. ( Id. ¶ 29.) Over the course of the meeting, Defendant Boden let two of the five students, including Plaintiff M.D., return to class without changing their shirts. (Complaint ¶¶ 29–30; Answer ¶ 29.) These two students were wearing “Tap Out” shirts. ( Id.) Defendant Boden told Plaintiffs D.M. and D.G. that they had to either turn their shirts inside out or go home for the day. (Answer ¶ 30.) He told them that if they chose to go home for the day, they would receive excused absences and it would not count against their attendance record. ( Id.) Both Plaintiffs left school at that time. (Complaint ¶ 30.) Although Plaintiff M.D. had been allowed to return to class, Dianna Dariano removed her son from school for the rest of that day. (Answer ¶ 31.)

B. Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on June 23, 2010.⁸ Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that: (1) the case was moot because the individual Defendants were no longer employed by the District; (2) Plaintiffs' claims for nominal damages were barred by sovereign immunity; (3) Plaintiff M.D. suffered no injury in fact because he was allowed to return to class without changing his clothes; and (4) none of the named parents had standing to sue on their own behalf as they had not suffered injury.⁹ The Court granted Defendants' Motion with respect to the parents, holding that the parents lacked standing to bring the suit. ( See February 17 Order at 14–15.) The Court denied Defendants' Motion in all other respects. ( Id.) Defendants then filed their Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, asserting sovereign immunity as to all claims against Defendant Morgan Hill and qualified immunity for Defendants Boden and Rodriguez. (Answer at 8–9.)

Presently before the Court are the parties' Cross–Motions for Summary Judgment.

III. STANDARDS

Summary judgment is proper “if 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 judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The purpose of summary judgment “is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses.” Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The moving party “always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying the evidence which it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The non-moving party must then identify specific facts “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,” thus establishing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e).

When evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court views the evidence through the prism of the evidentiary standard of proof that would pertain at trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The court draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, including questions of credibility and of the weight that particular evidence is accorded. See, e.g., Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 520, 111 S.Ct. 2419, 115 L.Ed.2d 447 (1991). The court determines whether the non-moving party's “specific facts,” coupled with disputed background or contextual facts, are such that a reasonable jury might return a verdict for the non-moving party. T.W. Elec. Serv. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir.1987). In such a case, summary judgment is inappropriate. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. However, where a rational trier of fact could not find for the non-moving party based on the record as a whole, there is no “genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

Although the district court has discretion to consider materials in the court file not referenced in the opposing papers, it need not do so. See Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1028–29 (9th Cir.2001). “The district court need not examine the entire file for evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact.” Id. at 1031. However, when the parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court must consider all of the evidence submitted in support of both motions to evaluate whether a genuine issue of material fact exists precluding summary judgment for either party. Fair Housing Council of Riverside Cnty., Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir.2001).

IV. DISCUSSION

Defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) All claims against Defendant Morgan Hill are barred by the Eleventh Amendment; (2) Plaintiffs' cause of action for free speech violations fails because school administrators reasonably forecast that Plaintiffs' clothing would cause a substantial disruption at school; (3) Plaintiffs' equal protection claim fails because Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence that they were discriminated against; and (4) Plaintiffs' cause of action for violation of due process fails because as a matter of law Defendant Morgan Hill's dress code policy provides adequate notice to students of what attire is prohibited. (Defendants' Motion at 1–2.) Defendants further contend that none of the actions of Defendant Rodriguez violated law which was clearly established at the time, entitling Defendant Rodriguez to qualified immunity. ( Id.)

Plaintiffs counter that they must prevail on all claims as a matter of law because: (1) Plaintiffs' attire did not cause any disruption of school activities, rendering its suppression a violation of the First Amendment; ¹⁰ (2) Plaintiffs were denied the equal protection of the law because undisputed evidence demonstrates that they were treated differently than students wearing Mexican flags and flag colors; ¹¹ and (3) the undisputed evidence shows that Defendant Morgan Hill provides no guidelines for administrators in determining when clothing is disruptive, rendering Defendant Morgan Hill's dress code policy unconstitutionally vague in violation of their right to due process. ( Id. at 19.) Plaintiffs also contend that their claims against Morgan Hill and Defendant Rodriguez are not barred by sovereign immunity because monetary damages are sought only against the school administrators in their individual capacities, and not against the state itself.¹²

A. Eleventh Amendment Immunity

At issue is whether Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Morgan Hill are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

The Eleventh Amendment bars private citizens from bringing suit against a state in federal court. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). States are immune from suit in federal court regardless of the nature of either the relief sought or the cause of action. Id. at 100–02, 104 S.Ct....