Dolen-Cartwright v. Alexander
| Decision Date | 21 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-527-JWD-RLB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
| Parties | SAMANTHA DOLEN-CARTWRIGHT, on behalf of real party in interest G.C. and real party in interest C.C. v. DAVID ALEXANDER, ET AL. |
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike, and Motion for Attorney's Fees. (R. Doc. 20). The motion is opposed. (R. Doc. 26).[1] Defendants filed a Reply. (R. Doc. 29).[2]
Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Change Status from Pro Se to Sui Juris and Affidavit (“Motion to Change Status”). (R. Doc. 27). The motion is opposed. (R. Doc. 29).
This suit arises out of a challenge to the constitutionality of a mask mandate implemented by the Ascension Parish Board of Education. (R. Doc. 1 (“Complaint”); R. Doc. 5 (“Amended Complaint”)). Plaintiff Samantha Dolen-Cartwright initiated this action on behalf of her two minor children G.C. and C.C, who were both students at Dutchtown High School, an Ascension Parish public school, at the time the lawsuit was filed. (R. Doc. 5 at 3 21).[3] Plaintiff names as defendants: (1) the Ascension Parish Board of Education (“School Board”); (2) David Alexander, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Ascension Parish School District; and (3) Taft Kleinpeter, Troy J. Gautreau Sr. Robyn Delaney, David Scott Duplechein, Julie Blouin, Marty Bourgeois, John D. Murphy, John DeFrances, Jared Bercegeay, Louis Lambert, Patricia Russo, Carli A Francois, Jill J. Gautreau, Mia Edwards, and Becky Amedee, all individual elected officials sued in their individual capacity and in their capacity as members of the School Board (collectively, “Defendants”). (R. Doc. 5 at 3-5).
On August 2, 2021, Governor John Bel Edwards issued a state-wide mask mandate in Louisiana. See Proclamation Number 137 JBE 2021 (effective August 4, 2021). On August 4, 2021, the School Board enacted a mask mandate for all students, teachers, and faculty:
FACE COVERINGS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY (INDOORS OR OUTDOORS): Pursuant to Proclamation #137 JBE 2021 issued by Governor John Bel Edwards, all individuals shall wear a face covering when indoors on Ascension Public Schools property, as well as on school buses. Individuals are required to wear a mask over the nose and mouth upon entry to any building and remain properly masked while traveling about hallways, corridors, and common spaces inside of the building or in classrooms. Masks are not required when outdoors.
On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff emailed a letter to the School Board stating that G.C. and C.C. were exempt from the mask mandate. (R. Doc. 5 at 21 (citing Ex. X of the Complaint, R. Doc. 1-1 at 186-204)). On August 10, 2021, G.C. and C.C. arrived at school without masks and were placed in a “Covid-19 isolation room” for pickup. (R. Doc. 5 at 21). Plaintiff then emailed various questions and requests for further information regarding the mask mandate to the School Board. (R. Doc. 5 at 21-22 (citing Ex. Z of the Complaint, R. Doc. 1-1 at 207-8)). The School Board sent Plaintiff a link to the proper mask mandate exemption form. (R. Doc. 5 at 22 (citing Ex. AA of the Complaint, R. Doc. 1-1 at 209-10)). On August 11, 2021, G.C. and C.C. again arrived at school without masks and were placed in a “Covid-19 isolation room” for pickup (R. Doc. 5 at 22). Plaintiff (or her children) hand submitted the School Board's “Face Covering Accommodation Request Forms” to Ms. Francois. (R. Doc. 5 at 22). These forms sought an exemption from the mask mandate based on a “medical condition” but do not provide any physician approval. (Ex. CC to the Complaint, R. Doc. 1-1 at 212-13). The School Board denied the requests for medical exemptions because the forms did not provide a physician's signature. (R. Doc. 5 at 22 (citing Ex. DD to the Complaint, R. Doc. 1-1 at 215-16)). Plaintiff does not explain the nature of the alleged medical conditions for which she sought the mask mandate exemptions.
Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that the School Board's mask policy causes immediate and irreparable health risks to students, staff, and the community at large. (R. Doc. 5 at 26). In support, Plaintiff relies on the Affidavit of Stephen E. Petty. (R. Doc. 5 at 26 (citing Ex. O of the Complaint, R. Doc. 1-1 at 21-26)). Mr. Petty is purportedly an expert in the field of Industrial Hygiene, who has testified as to the “futility and danger caused by an individual wearing a mask in order to avoid transmitting or becoming infected with Covid-19[.]” (R. Doc. 5 at 26).
Plaintiff further alleges that her two children have been harmed by having to comply with the mask mandate, which is “not only unsupported by science, but which also results in the possible resulting measurable drop in oxygen saturation of the blood on one hand and the increase in carbon dioxide on the other, which contributes to an increased noradrenergic stress response, with heart rate increase and respiratory rate increase and, in some cases, a significant blood pressure increase.” (R. Doc. 5 at 35-35).
Based on the above, Plaintiff filed her Complaint on September 14, 2021. (R. Doc. 1). The Complaint seeks a ruling declaring that the mask mandate is void and enjoining Defendants “from implementing or enforcing the mask policy and from taking any other action to implement the masking policy that is not in compliance with applicable law[.]” (R. Doc. 1 at 33).
On September 24, 2021, the district judge in this action denied a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order brought in a similar action seeking an injunction of the School Board mask mandate, finding that it did not satisfy the any of the four prongs required to obtain a TRO. Miranda on behalf of M.M. v. Alexander, No. 21-535, 2021 WL 4352328 (M.D. La. Sept. 24, 2021). First, the district judge held that “Plaintiff's claim fails on the merits because she has not proven a Fourteenth Amendment violation.” Id. at *4. Second, the district judge further held that Plaintiff had not established a substantial threat of irreparable injury because “(1) she has not shown that her children are suffering or are likely to suffer a real and actual harm; (2) her claim hinges on an affidavit which is not in proper form but, even if considered, (a) is based on data which is vague and non-specific and is not tied to potential harm to Plaintiff's children and (b) relates more to whether masks are effective, rather than the potential consequences of wearing one.” Id. at *6. Third, the district judge held that “enjoining the School Board's mask policy would potentially cause substantial harm to the Parish's students, teachers, and faculty through community spread of COVID-19, which could potentially cause serious illness and death to them as well as those with whom they come into contact.” Id. Fourth, the district judge held that “based on the grave risks associated with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the increased risks to the school children of Ascension Parish and the public of granting the injunction, . . . the public interest would not be served by enjoining the mask mandate [, which] would pose an increased risk of quarantines, illness, and long-term learning disruptions.” Id.
On October 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (R. Doc. 5).[4] Plaintiff now seeks recovery under 18 overlapping claims brought under both federal and state law for the alleged deprivation of her minor children's rights to life, liberty, and property when the School Board implemented the mask manDated:
(R. Doc. 5 at 43-53). Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that (1) her children have a constitutionally protected interest in not being subjected to the School Board's mask mandate; (2) the School Board's policy unlawfully deprives Plaintiff's children of their constitutionally protected rights without due process of law; and (3) the School Board impeded on the fundamental right of her children to public education. As in the original Complaint, the relief prayed for by the Plaintiff includes injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the mask policy, as well as an award of attorney's fees. (R. Doc. 5 at 53-54). Plaintiff also appears to seek monetary damages.
On October 26, 2021...
To continue reading
Request your trial