E.H. v. Barrilleaux

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
• Writing for the Court: WENDY B. VITTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Citation: E.H. v. Barrilleaux, 519 F.Supp.3d 328 (E.D. La. 2021)
• Decision Date: 15 January 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-10613
• Parties: E.H., BY AND THROUGH Her Next Friend, Althea ABRON v. Arthur BARRILLEAUX, et al.

519 F.Supp.3d 328

E.H., BY AND THROUGH Her Next Friend, Althea ABRON

v.Arthur BARRILLEAUX, et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-10613

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Signed January 15, 2021

John S. Williams, Law Offices of John S. Williams, LLC, Justin E. Alsterberg, Scott L. Sternberg, Sternberg, Naccari & White, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Althea Abron.

Paul E. Harrison, DeShea S. Richardson, Harrison & Richardson, Mandeville, LA, for Arthur Barrilleaux, Brett Chatelain.

SECTION D (3)

ORDER

WENDY B. VITTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Arthur Barrilleaux and Brett Chatelain.¹ Plaintiff E.H. has filed an Opposition to each Motion,² and Defendants filed a consolidated Reply.³ After careful review of the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants both Motions.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

E.H. was a fourteen-year old student in eighth grade at Ponchatoula High School.⁴ On March 28, 2019, after E.H. had finished her lunch and was cleaning her tray, D.S. allegedly threw food at E.H.’s head.⁵ After lunch, E.H. identified the student she believed to have thrown food at her, and confronted the student in the school's courtyard.⁶ A fight, parts of which were recorded, ensued.⁷ The video shows E.H. and D.S. in a physical altercation. D.S. has a grip on E.H.’s hair, while E.H. has a grip on D.S.’s shirt. The video shows the students spin around the courtyard while holding on to each other, and each girl uses fists to strike the other on the head multiple times. In the final two seconds of the video, Nathan Kelly, a teacher at the school, and a female administrator approach to begin to break up the fight.

Kelly testified that he was the first one on the scene who attempted to break the girls up.⁸ Kelly further testified that he separated the girls, and began to move one girl (D.S.) into the discipline office. Kelly stated that as he was walking D.S. away, he heard a "furious" E.H. "making a commotion."⁹ Kelly also testified that E.H. attempted to attack D.S. after Kelly had D.S. restrained and was walking away.¹⁰ E.H. was prevented from re-engaging with D.S. because Defendant Chatelain "grabbed her."¹¹

At approximately 12:35 p.m., Arthur Barrilleaux (a disciplinarian and English teacher at the school) was called into the courtyard for the purpose of deescalating the fight between the students.¹² At approximately the same time, Brett Chatelain (a physical education teacher at the school) was also called into the courtyard for the purpose of assisting with deescalating the fight between the students.¹³ There is no video in evidence demonstrating what took place between the students’ fight and the second video, which shows some of the actions of Defendants’ at issue purportedly moments later. Chatelain testified that the students were still swinging at each other when Chatelain walked up, but that Mr. Kelly had already grabbed D.S.¹⁴ Chatelain grabbed E.H. around the waist, and then they fell to the ground.¹⁵ Chatelain testified that he then restrained E.H.¹⁶ Barrilleaux walked into the courtyard as the students were being separated and Chatelain and E.H. fell to the ground.¹⁷ Barrilleaux testified: "She was fighting Coach Chatelain. Well, she wasn't fighting, throwing punches. She was struggling to get free from Chatelain, and he was having to restrain her from getting up."¹⁸ Barrilleaux testified that E.H. was "trying to get up, and [Chatelain] was restraining her and trying to calm her down."¹⁹ He further testified that E.H. was using her feet and "struggling to get free from Chatelain."²⁰ Chatelain testified that E.H. continued to struggle.²¹ Barrilleaux testified that he grabbed E.H.’s feet.²²

What happened next was also partially captured on camera.²³ In the second video Brett Chatelain can be seen restraining E.H.’s hands while she is on the concrete ground. He moves in and plants his knee on her torso.²⁴ Barrilleaux (green shirt) comes up and restrains E.H.’s legs. Barrilleaux drags E.H. a slight distance on the ground. Barrilleaux states: "Be still or I am gonna thump your ass." E.H. continues to kick.²⁵ Barrilleaux continues: "I'll do whatever I want to your ass if you act stupid." E.H. can be heard yelling "let me up."²⁶ Either Barrilleaux or Chatelain responds: "calm down and I'll let you up."²⁷ Chatelain positions his hands near E.H.’s shoulders. Barrilleaux says "I'll take your ass to jail."²⁸ Chatelain testified that he did not place his weight on E.H., although he did have his knee near her midsection.²⁹ Plaintiff also contends, without a citation to record evidence, that she was later restrained on a table, where she allegedly hit her head multiple times.³⁰ Chatelain disputed this in his deposition, in which he stated that he and Barrilleaux held her arms and only leaned her up against the picnic table, making no effort to harm her head.³¹

E.H. was later diagnosed with a concussion.³² She was also diagnosed with PTSD, as well as anxiety and depression related to the incident.³³

Defendants rely on two experts who state that their actions were reasonable.³⁴ Bruce Chapman, an expert who implemented the Handle with Care Program for the Tangipahoa Parish School System, states that "Defendants Brett Chatelain and Arthur R. Barrilleaux used the minimal amount of force necessary in their efforts to restrain the Plaintiff, E.H. Both Defendants acted in accordance with a ‘Reasonable Person’ standard during the incident."³⁵ Notably, Chapman also includes an analysis of the videos. He states that "Barrilleaux was very loud, confrontational, and inartful in his vocalizations and language."³⁶ However, he concludes: "[d]espite the harsh vocalizations, from a physical standpoint, both Defendants behaved reasonably in their efforts to contain [E.H.] and were consistent in the minimal amount of force used throughout."³⁷ Defendants also rely on Captain Kenneth Sanders, a national expert in police procedure and use of force. He stated: "my opinion is that any force of technique used by Mr. Chatelain or Mr. Barrilleaux was not excessive or unreasonable."³⁸

Barrilleaux and Chatelain were both terminated. Both filed lawsuits in state court challenging their termination. Barrilleaux won his suit, and the state court ordered that he be reinstated with back pay.³⁹ The Court found that Barrilleaux did not use excessive force or violate school policies.⁴⁰ After the ruling in Barrilleaux's case, the Tangipahoa Parish School Board agreed to reinstate Chatelain.⁴¹

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint⁴² alleges four claims against Barrilleaux and Chatelain. First, E.H. alleges violations of her Constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amended via 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This is E.H.’s only claim arising under federal law. Plaintiff's remaining claims for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ("IIED"), assault and battery, and physical abuse of a minor each arise under Louisiana law.

Defendants move for summary judgment.⁴³ In their Motions, Defendants first argue that Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim should be dismissed. They argue that in the context of corporal punishment in schools, a plaintiff can have a claim arising under the Constitution only when the act is "arbitrary, capricious, or wholly unrelated to the legitimate state goal of maintaining an atmosphere conducive to learning." They further argue that the Fifth Circuit does not allow a public school student to bring a Section 1983 claim where the state provides an adequate remedy. Defendants point to two Fifth Circuit cases— Flores v. School Board of DeSoto Parish⁴⁴ and Marquez v. Garnett .⁴⁵ Defendants contend that the actions taken to punish the students in Flores and Marquez were more extreme than those here, yet in both of those cases the Fifth Circuit rejected the plaintiff's Section 1983 claim. Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs state law claims are barred by Louisiana statute because both Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under state law and because their actions constituted reasonable corporal punishment, which Louisiana law allows.

In her Oppositions,⁴⁶ Plaintiff argues that the fight between E.H. and D.S. had already been broken up, and therefore Defendants’ actions cannot be said to serve a pedagogical objective. As to the Section 1983 claim, Plaintiff argues that schoolchildren have a liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amended in their "bodily integrity" which was violated by Defendants. Plaintiff states (in somewhat conclusory fashion) that "[c]ommon sense demonstrates that a triable issue exists considering the circumstances as to whether Defendant Barrilleaux's actions and amount of force used were or were not ‘objectively reasonable’ considering the age and size of E.H., as well as the fact that the altercation was over by the time he arrived." Plaintiff also contends that Flores and Marquez are not precedent because they are not published cases.

Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ actions are not corporal punishment as defined by Louisiana law. Plaintiff cites to La. R.S. 17:416.1(B)(1), which defines corporal punishment as "using physical force to discipline a student, with or without an object." Plaintiff contends that because Defendants did not act to punish E.H., they cannot argue that their actions were corporal punishment. Rather, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ actions should be characterized as physical restraint, and that Defendants did not properly exercise physical restraint.

Plaintiff also takes issue with Defendants reliance of the expert opinions of Bruce Chapman and Captain Sanders. Although Plaintiff has not moved to exclude either expert, Plaintiff argues that Sanders's opinion is based on inaccurate information and that he cannot assist the trier of fact because his experience is with penal facilities. Plaintiff also argues that Chapman provided a "complete mischaracterization" of the evidence and that he failed to properly...