Dorley v. S. Fayette Twp. Sch. Dist., Civil Action No. 2:15–cv–00214.

• Decision Date: 04 September 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2:15–cv–00214.
• Citation: 129 F.Supp.3d 220
• Parties: Zachary Robert DORLEY, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH FAYETTE TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

129 F.Supp.3d 220

Zachary Robert DORLEY, Plaintiff,

v.SOUTH FAYETTE TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:15–cv–00214.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed Sept. 4, 2015.

Jesse A. Drumm, Peter D. Friday, Friday & Cox, LLC, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff.

Joseph L. Luvara, Linda V. Hernandez, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, Thomas A. McDonnell, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendants.

OPINION

MARK R. HORNAK, District Judge.

This case arises out of injuries sustained at a local high school football training camp in 2009. The Plaintiff, then an incoming high school freshman,¹ participated in a blocking drill with an upperclassman and sustained injuries because of what he alleges was an unconstitutionally dangerous drill and the upperclassman's excessively aggressive and tortious conduct during and after that drill.

Using 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he has sued the South Fayette School District and at least some of its football coaches, alleging federal (and state) constitutional claims. He has also sued the involved upperclassman and his parents for several state law torts. After removing the case to this Court from state court, all Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's federal claims will be dismissed in their entirety, but with leave to amend certain of them. Some of the state law claims will also be dismissed. Should Plaintiff decline to amend his Complaint on the federal claims or they otherwise subsequently fail, the remaining state law claims will be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County for disposition. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

I. BACKGROUND

The events underlying this case occurred during a high school football training camp conducted by the South Fayette High School football team in May, 2009, for the students playing on the team that upcoming fall. ECF No. 1–1, at ¶ 14.² Zachary Robert Dorley ("Plaintiff" or "Mr. Dorley") was a 140–pound incoming freshman at the time. Id. at ¶¶ 13–14, 20. The Complaint alleges that the South Fayette School District, acting via Defendant coaches Rossi, Sweeney, and Yost (collectively with the School District, "School District Defendants"), organized a one-on-one blocking drill which "was not supposed to be done at full speed, and was described in advance by defendants ... as 'non-contact.' " Id. at ¶¶ 15–16. Players performed the drill without helmets or other pads. Id. at ¶ 22. Mr. Dorley participated in the drill against Steven McElhinny ("Mr. McElhinny" or "Student Defendant"), a student and football player then in the eleventh grade, who allegedly then weighed approximately 240 pounds. Id. at ¶¶ 12, 20, 22. The Complaint alleges that Mr. McElhinny performed the drill at full speed and drove Mr. Dorley back farther than the prescribed distance (despite Mr. Dorley's yells for him to stop), ultimately giving "one final violent shove" which threw Mr. Dorley through the air and caused his arm to break. Id. at ¶¶ 23–24. Mr. Dorley claims he has had nine (9) surgical procedures on his arm, in addition to other treatment, and that he has suffered both physically and emotionally as a result of this episode. Id. at ¶¶ 37–38.

Plaintiff alleges that Mr. McElhinny's conduct was not only lauded by the other players and the coaches, id. at ¶ 25, but that the School District Defendants in fact "set up the drill in such a way that much smaller, inexperienced underclassmen would be pitted against larger, stronger, more experienced upperclassmen." Id. at ¶ 17. Mr. Dorley claims that larger upperclassmen "would frequently exceed the scope of the drill" and that the School District Defendants "created an atmosphere that encouraged violence" by instructing upperclassmen to "exhibit their dominance, strength and aggression on the underclassmen in order to 'toughen them up.' " Id. at ¶¶ 18–19. Mr. Dorley also alleges "[t]he entire coaching staff ... was watching attentively as the aforementioned events occurred, and witnessed plaintiff's injuries." Id. at ¶ 28. He further states that after injuring him, Mr. McElhinny and other upperclassmen "mocked plaintiff for his reaction." Id. at ¶ 26. The Complaint also alleges that the coaches "observed and encouraged similar [aggressive] behavior during the same drill" during the days of training camp leading up to the date on which Plaintiff was injured. Id. at ¶ 32.³

Mr. Dorley filed his Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. This action was removed to this Court and filed on its docket on February 17, 2015. ECF No. 1. The Complaint asserts eleven (11) counts: Counts I–VI are claims brought via 42 U.S.C. § 1983against the School District Defendants for various Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause violations, specifically asserted claims for Injury to Human Dignity, Injury to Bodily Integrity, and Injury as a Result of a State Created Danger/Special Relationship. Count VII asserts a violation of Pennsylvania's Constitution for Injury to Bodily Integrity. Counts VIII–X contain state law claims against Mr. McElhinny for Battery, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ("IIED") and Negligence, and Count XI is a state law claim against Mr. McElhinny's parents ("Parent Defendants") alleging Negligence and Vicarious Liability for their son's acts. All Defendants have filed Motions to Dismiss. ECF Nos. 5; 9. The Court has reviewed the Motions, the parties' briefs in support of and in opposition to them as well as supplemental briefs on the issue of qualified immunity, and heard oral argument on the matter.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint which fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is properly dismissed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Courts assessing the sufficiency of a complaint must "accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions." Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210–11 (3d Cir.2009)(citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)). Claims must be facially plausible, meaning they must contain " 'factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.' " Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp., 609 F.3d 239, 262 n. 27 (3d Cir.2010)(quoting Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949). They must "raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element[s]." Thompson v. Real Estate Mortg. Network, 748 F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir.2014)(internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

The Court will first consider Mr. Dorley's federal claims against the School District Defendants, and will then turn to his state law claims against the Student Defendant and Parent Defendants. All federal claims are asserted solely against the School District Defendants, while the state law tort claims are asserted only against Mr. McElhinny and his parents.⁴ As to the federal claims, the Court's analysis will focus on the claims filed against all School District Defendants in the first instance, and then the Court will more specifically address the claims against the School District itself.

A. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Claims (Counts I–VI) and Application of the Qualified Immunity Doctrine

The federal claims in Plaintiff's Complaint assert several theories of liability. Any such federal claim must allege that a plaintiff was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States by a person acting with the authority of state law.⁵ Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160, 165–66 (3d Cir.2013)(en banc), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 824, 187 L.Ed.2d 686 (2013). "The first step in evaluating a section 1983claim is to identify the exact contours of the underlying right said to have been violated and to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right at all." Nicini v. Morra, 212 F.3d 798, 806 (2000)(en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Fourteenth Amendment provides procedural and substantive protections to citizens by ensuring that states shall not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. At issue is whether Mr. Dorley has adequately alleged a substantive due process violation against the School District Defendants for the injuries he sustained while participating in a football training camp drill.⁶ Mr. Dorley alleges two (2) counts (one against the School District and one against the individual School District Defendants) on each of three theories of liability under the Fourteenth Amendment: (1) a violation of the right to human dignity; (2) a violation of the right to bodily integrity; and (3) a deprivation based on the state-created danger doctrine.

As an initial matter, the Court observes that our Court of Appeals has yet to expressly recognize or reject in a precedential opinion any claim which rises to the level of a substantive due process violation in regard to physical injuries caused by a fellow student in the interscholastic sports context.⁷ In light of that, this Court is generally hesitant to federalize the nuances of the on-field conduct of interscholastic athletics, or to rush to endorse a view that such violations exist in the day-to-day conduct of high school sports, absent compelling circumstances.

Here's why.

The Supreme Court expects lower federal courts to act as gatekeepers when it comes to defining or expanding substantive due process protections. See Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex., 503 U.S. 115, 125, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992)("[T]he Court has always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decision-making in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended. The doctrine of judicial self-restraint requires us to exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break...