Doe v. Perry Community School Dist.

Decision Date29 April 2004
Docket NumberNo. 4:04-CV-40161.,4:04-CV-40161.
Citation316 F.Supp.2d 809
PartiesJohn DOE, Plaintiff, v. PERRY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT; Randy McCaulley, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Perry Community School District; Dan Marburger, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Principal of the Perry High School; Bob Gittens, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Associate Principal of the Perry High School; Jerry "Pat" Jans, Individually and in his Official Capacity as School Resource Officer in the Perry Community School District, and Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Police Officer for the Perry, Iowa, Police Department; and the City of Perry, Iowa, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa

Robert P. Montgomery, Montgomery Law Office, Des Moines, IA, for plaintiff.

John D. Jordan, Kirke C. Quinn, Payner, Jordan, Mahoney, Jordan, Hunziker & Rhodes LLP, Madrid, IA, Harry Perkins, III, Patterson Lorentzen Duffield Timmons, Des Moines, IA, for defendants.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

GRITZNER, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Clerk's No 2). Attorney for Plaintiff is Robert Montgomery; attorneys for Defendants are Kirke Quinn, representing Perry Community School District and those associated with the school district, and Harry Perkins III, representing the City of Perry and those associated with the City. A hearing was requested by Plaintiff on an expedited basis, and the Court scheduled a hearing as soon as was reasonable for the parties. Evidence was received and oral argument presented in that hearing on April 15-16, 2004. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction is now fully submitted to the Court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff, John Doe ("Doe"), filed a Complaint in this Court on March 18, 2004. The Complaint listed as Defendants the Perry Community School District ("the District"), Randy McCaulley, individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of Perry Community School District ("Superintendent McCaulley"), Dan Marburger, individually and in his official capacity as Principal of Perry High School ("Principal Marburger"), Bob Gittens, individually and in his official capacity as Associate Principal of Perry High School ("Mr.Gittens"), Jerry "Pat" Jans, individually and in his official capacity as School Resource Officer in the Perry Community School District, and individually and in his official capacity as a police officer for the Perry, Iowa, Police Department ("Officer Jans"), and the City of Perry ("Perry" or "the City"). Jurisdiction was invoked under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this is a civil action asserting claims arising under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, for violations of constitutional and civil rights, including those contained in the First Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and for violation of Title IX, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1681. The other ancillary state claims are brought pursuant to the Court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Simultaneous with the filing of his Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Defendants have resisted Plaintiff's motion and resist issuance of any sort of preliminary injunction in the matter. Plaintiff requested expedited relief on the motion, which the Court has attempted to satisfy while still allowing Defendants sufficient opportunity to meet the charges leveled against them and adequately defend against the pending motion. To this end, the Court scheduled and heard oral argument on the motion in a hearing that stretched into two days, on April 15-16, 2004. Plaintiff and all Defendants were represented by counsel, and both sides had opportunity to present witness and exhibit evidence relevant to the pending motion.

In his motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a preliminary injunction that accomplishes the following:

(1) Enjoins the Defendant, Perry Community School District and its administrators and officials, from taking any adverse action against the Plaintiff, including suspension, in response to his speaking out in the halls of the school in protest against hate-based discrimination or threats, including specifically, hate-based statements, harassment, discrimination, or threats lodged against the Plaintiff individually.

(2) Enjoining the Defendant City of Perry Police Department, Defendant Police Officer Jans, and any and all other officers within the department, including any officer assigned as a Student Resource Officer at Perry High School, from arresting, and/or charging, and/or taking adverse action against Plaintiff in response to his speaking up, in or on the premises of Perry High School, against hate-based discrimination and/or harassment, including specifically, hate-based discrimination, and/or harassment, and/or statements and/or threats directed specifically toward the Plaintiff by other students, teachers, administrators, or employees of Defendant school.

In addition, at the hearing the Plaintiff further requested the additional remedy that the Court include in the preliminary injunction an order requiring the Defendants to "affirmatively enforce the harassment policy [of the school district] with regard to intolerance and harassment against homosexuals," insofar as such injunctive relief is available under Title IX and section 1983. The motion is fully submitted, and the Court analyzes the Plaintiff's motion in light of the evidence received and the corresponding filings made by the parties.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The matter currently before the Court relates solely to the request for a preliminary injunction, essentially involving the exercise of the Plaintiff's rights of expression. In order to understand the background for these more specific issues, a more general overview of the Plaintiff's claims must be provided. However, the consideration of the majority of the Plaintiff's claims is left to another day.

Doe is an 18-year-old student in his senior year of high school at Perry High School, located in Perry, Iowa. He participated in school athletics as a member of the football and wrestling teams at the school and otherwise participated fully in the educational offerings of Perry High School throughout most of the time period that makes up the current action.

Due in large part to the incidents giving rise to the environment that prompted the current lawsuit by Plaintiff, Doe is currently receiving instruction at his home in anticipation of graduating from high school concurrently with the members of his high school class. He receives 45 minutes of instruction three days a week from a teacher provided by the District. The remaining outside work is to be completed by Doe. Doe desires to return to high school provided it is a safe environment for him.

The District is a public school district duly organized under the laws of the State of Iowa and doing business in Dallas County, Iowa. The District is responsible for educating students in the surrounding community. It controls and manages the public schools in Perry, Iowa, including Perry High School ("the School"), where the events that form the basis of this action allegedly took place.

Superintendent McCaulley was working as an employee and agent of the District as Superintendent of the District at all times material to the present action. He supervises all teachers, administrators, coaches, student resource officers, and other employees within the District. Superintendent McCaulley is further in charge of establishing and/or enforcing the rules, regulations, and policies of the schools within the District, and overseeing the discipline of students at the schools. Superintendent McCaulley is a person for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was allegedly operating at all times material as an employee of the District in his official capacity under the color of state law.

Principal Marburger was working as an employee and agent of the District as the Principal of Perry High School at all times material to the present action. He supervises, or assists in supervising, all teachers, administrators, coaches, student resource officers, and other employees at Perry High School. Principal Marburger is further in charge of establishing and/or enforcing the rules, regulations, and policies at Perry High School, and overseeing the discipline of students at the school. Principal Marburger is a person for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was allegedly operating at all times material as an employee of the District in his official capacity under the color of state law.

Mr. Gittens was working as an employee and agent of the District as the Associate Principal of Perry High School at all times material to the present action. He supervises, or assists in supervising, all teachers administrators, coaches, student resource officers, and other employees at Perry High School. Mr. Gittens further assists in establishing and/or enforcing the rules, regulations, and policies of the Perry High School, and takes care of approximately 95 percent of the discipline of students at the school. He is also an assistant wrestling coach at the school. Mr. Gittens is a person for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was allegedly operating at all times material as an employee of the District in his official capacity under the color of state law.

Officer Jans was working as an employee and agent of the District as a Resource Officer at Perry High School at all times material to the present action. He was contemporaneously employed as a police officer with the City of Perry, Iowa, Police Department. Officer Jans is a person for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was allegedly operating at all times material...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • D.C. v. Harvard-Westlake School
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 14, 2009
    ...fostering tolerance and thereby decreasing hate crimes among students is in the public interest." (Doe v. Perry Community School Dist. (S.D. Iowa 2004) 316 F.Supp.2d 809, 839, citation In upholding a state hate crimes law against a free speech challenge under the First Amendment (U.S. Const......
  • Jacobsen v. Iowa Dept. of Transp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • May 7, 2013
    ...the third and fourth Dataphase factors are insufficient on their own to support a preliminary injunction." Doe v. Perry Cmty. Sch. Dist., 316 F. Supp. 2d 809, 820 (S.D. Iowa 2004) (citing Microware Sys. Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 1207, 1218-19 (S.D. Iowa 2000)). This Cou......
  • Ventura v. ABM Indus. Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 10, 2013
    ...fostering tolerance and thereby decreasing hate crimes among students is in the public interest.’ (Doe v. Perry Community School Dist. (S.D.Iowa 2004) 316 F.Supp.2d 809, 839, citation omitted.) [¶] In upholding a state hate crimes law against a free speech challenge under the First Amendmen......
  • Stevenson v. City of S.F.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • January 5, 2016
    ...courts, specifically, in Douglas v. Brookville Area School Dist., 836 F. Supp. 2d 329 (W.D. Pa,2011) and Doe v. Perry Community School Dist., 316 F. Supp. 2d 809 (S.D. Iowa 2004), have recognized claims for failure to prevent discrimination, and that this Court likewise should find such cla......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • "a Fresh Look": Title Vii's New Promise for Lgbt Discrimination Protection Post-hively
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 68-6, 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...Unified Sch. Dist., 678 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1026 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (actionable sexual harassment claim); Doe v. Perry Cmty. Sch. Dist., 316 F. Supp. 2d 809, 833-34 (S.D. Iowa 2004) (actionable sexual harassment claim).238. See Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll., 853 F.3d 339, 345 (7th Cir. 2017).2......

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