Fiedler v. Stroudsburg Area Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 06 December 2019
• Docket Number: NO. 3:19-CV-0983,3:19-CV-0983
• Citation: 427 F.Supp.3d 539
• Parties: Johna FIEDLER, Plaintiff, v. STROUDSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

427 F.Supp.3d 539

Johna FIEDLER, Plaintiff,

v.STROUDSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

NO. 3:19-CV-0983

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed December 6, 2019

Filed December 9, 2019

David W. Saba, Law Office of David W. Saba, Kingston, PA, Harry T. Coleman, Law Office of Harry Coleman, Carbondale, PA, for Plaintiff.

Michele J. Mintz, Fox Rothschild, LLP, Blue Bell, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

A. Richard Caputo, United States District Judge Presently before me is a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) filed by Defendants Stroudsburg Area School District (the "District"), John A. Toleno ("Toleno"), Ryan Cron ("Cron"), and Joanna Kovacs ("Kovacs") (collectively, where appropriate, "Defendants"). Plaintiff Johna Fiedler alleges that after she suffered a concussion in 2014, her doctors instructed her not to participate in activities which presented the threat of additional concussions. Defendants were aware of this, and a Section 504 plan was put in place. As a result, Fiedler was excused from gym classes that posed risks of future concussions, including classes involving sports like basketball or football. Yet, despite these restrictions, Kovacs, a junior high gym teacher, forced Fiedler to participate in gym class one day and gave her the choice of playing basketball or football. Fiedler sustained injuries during that class after she was struck in the back of the head with a basketball.

Fiedler subsequently commenced this litigation asserting that Defendants violated her rights under the United States Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The motion to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part. Because Fiedler adequately states a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Kovacs for the alleged deprivation of bodily integrity on a state-created danger theory, she will be permitted to proceed with that claim. Otherwise, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, so the remaining causes of action will be dismissed. But, Fiedler will be given the opportunity to amend with respect to her Rehabilitation Act/Americans with Disabilities Act claim, her procedural due process claim, and her substantive due process claim against the District, Toleno, and Cron.

I. Background

The facts as alleged in the Complaint are as follows:

Fiedler is an adult and former student at Stroudsburg Junior High School. (See Doc. 1, ¶ 3). Cron was the Stroudsburg Junior High School principal, while Kovacs was a gym teacher at that school. (See id. at ¶¶ 5-6). Toleno was the District superintendent. (See id. at ¶ 4).

In March 2014, Fiedler suffered a concussion from a snowboarding accident. (See id. at ¶ 12). As a result, Fiedler's physicians prohibited her from participating in any activities which would expose her to further concussions, including those involving potential or actual contact with athletic balls. (See id. ). Thus, she was excused from participation in physical education classes when such activities were occurring. (See id. ). Fiedler's mother conveyed this information to the District, namely to Cron, Kovacs, a guidance counselor, and the school nurse. (See id. at ¶ 13).

On June 11, 2014, Fiedler should have been a non-participant in her physical education class taught by Kovacs because the class was playing basketball and football. (See id. at ¶ 22). Fiedler, however, was forced to participate in gym class that day despite the medical documentation on file. (See id. at ¶¶ 23-24). Kovacs felt "it ha[d] been long enough" and "forced" Fiedler to choose between playing football or basketball. (See id. at ¶ 24). Fiedler protested, but nonetheless went onto the basketball court with a group of classmates. (See id. at ¶ 24). Although she was cognizant and vigilant to avoid injury, Fiedler was still struck in the back of her head by a basketball. (See id. at ¶¶ 25-26). She immediately experienced nausea, dizziness, and a headache. (See id. at ¶ 27). Fiedler was disoriented, but managed to proceed to the school nurse on her own. (See id. at ¶¶ 28-29). When Fiedler sustained the injury, Kovacs was in an office, not the gym. (See id. at ¶ 30). After her visit to the nurse's office, Fiedler returned to her normal course of study. (See id. at ¶ 33).

Upon learning of Fiedler's injury, her mother arranged an appointment with her concussion specialist. (See id. at ¶ 40). As a result of the incident during her gym class, Fiedler was injured and continues to suffer ill-effects from that injury. (See id. at ¶¶ 43-45). Her symptoms also worsened "with increased efforts on her school work, and as a result, her performance level severely declined." (Id. at ¶ 48). This required additional and continued accommodations for Fiedler to meet her school work. (See id. at ¶ 49).

Based on the foregoing, Fiedler commenced this action on June 7, 2019. (See Doc. 1, generally ). In the Complaint, Fiedler asserts the following claims: (1) "Amendment Fourteen - due process clause for injury to human dignity" against all Defendants (Count I); "Amendment Fourteen due process clause for injury to bodily integrity" against all Defendants (Count II); (3) "Amendment Fourteen due process clause for injury as a result of a state created danger/special relationship" against all Defendants (Count III); (4) violation of Pennsylvania Constitution Article I, Section I for injury to bodily integrity against all Defendants (Count IV); (5) "Amendment Fourteen due process clause for injury to human dignity" against the District (Count V); (6) "Amendment Fourteen due process clause for injury to bodily integrity" against the District (Count VI); (7) "Amendment Fourteen due process clause for injury as a result of a state created danger/special relationship" against the District (Count VII); (8) violation of Pennsylvania Constitution Article I, Section I for injury to Fiedler's property right to education against all Defendants (Count VIII); (9) "Amendment Fourteen due process clause/deprivation of property interests by failing to provide an education" against all Defendants (Count IX); (10) violation of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act against all Defendants (Count X); and (11) "Amendment Fourteen violation of equal protection" against all Defendants (Count XI). (See id. , generally ).

On October 9, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and supporting brief. (See Docs. 9-10, generally ). Fiedler filed her brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss on November 5, 2019. (See Doc. 13, generally ). On November 19, 2019, Defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss. (See Doc 14, generally ). The motion to dismiss is therefore fully briefed and ripe for disposition.

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint, in whole or in part, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "Under the ‘notice pleading’ standard embodied in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff must come forward with ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ " Thompson v. Real Estate Mortg. Network , 748 F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ).

When resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, "a court must consider no more than whether the complaint establishes ‘enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary elements’ of the cause of action." Trzaska v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. , 865 F. 3d 155, 162 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp. , 809 F.3d 780, 789 (3d Cir. 2016) ). In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, a court must take three steps: (1) identify the elements of the claim; (2) identify conclusions that are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) assume the veracity of the well-pleaded factual allegations and determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. See Connelly , 809 F.3d at 787 (citations omitted). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) ).

III. Discussion

Defendants' motion raises several grounds for dismissal of the Complaint. (See Doc. 10, generally ). First, though, Fiedler concedes to the dismissal of her Equal Protection Clause claim (Count XI), as well her claims against Defendants Toleno, Cron, and Kovacs in their official capacities. (See Doc. 13, 32).¹ Thus, those claims will be dismissed without discussion. Moreover, Counts V-VII of the Complaint will be dismissed because they are redundant of the claims in Counts I-III. Specifically, Fiedler's first three claims are asserted against all Defendants, and then those exact claims are asserted separately in Counts V-VII against the District only. (See Doc. 1, generally ). Because the District is included in the claims asserted in Counts I-III, Counts V-VII are redundant, so they will be dismissed.

A. Section 1983 Claims.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,² Fiedler claims that Defendants violated her due process rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.³ The Due Process Clause has both substantive and procedural components. See Evans v. Sec'y Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr. , 645 F.3d 650, 658 (3d Cir. 2011). "The substantive component of the Due Process Clause ‘protects individual liberty against ‘certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.’ " Gottlieb ex rel. Calabria v. Laurel Highlands Sch. Dist. , ...