Helena-West Helena School District #2 of Phillips County v. Circuit Court of Phillips County, 06-1284 (Ark. 3/15/2007), 06-1284

• Decision Date: 15 March 2007
• Docket Number: 06-1284
• Citation: Helena-West Helena School District #2 of Phillips County v. Circuit Court of Phillips County, 06-1284 (Ark. 3/15/2007), 06-1284 (Ark. Mar 15, 2007)
• Parties: HELENA-WEST HELENA SCHOOL DISTRICT #2 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, Arkansas; Rudolph Howard, Interim Superintendent in his Personal and his Official Capacity; and Lisa Baker in her Individual and Official Capacity as Principal of the West Side Elementary School of The Helena-West Helena School District, Petitioner, v. The CIRCUIT COURT OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, Arkansas, Respondent,
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 1

HELENA-WEST HELENA SCHOOL DISTRICT #2 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, Arkansas; Rudolph Howard, Interim Superintendent in his Personal and his Official Capacity; and Lisa Baker in her Individual and Official Capacity as Principal of the West Side Elementary School of The Helena-West Helena School District, Petitioner, v.The CIRCUIT COURT OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, Arkansas, Respondent,

06-1284

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion Delivered March 15, 2007

Petition for Writ of Certiorari or Prohibition, Petition for Rehearing Granted. Petition for Writ of Certiorari Granted.

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON GRANT OF REHEARING.

ROBERT L. BROWN, Associate Justice

The petition for rehearing is granted, and the petition for writ of certiorari is granted.

PetitionersHelena-West Helena School District, Rudolph Howard as interim superintendent, and Lisa Baker as principal of West Side Elementary School (collectively referred to as the "School District"), petition for a writ of certiorari or prohibition in response to the circuit court's order granting the request of Jimmy Brown, Jr. and Coretta Brown(the "Browns") for a temporary restraining order ("TRO").The School District argues that the circuit court had no subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the Browns' claims because the expulsion order was not final and because the Browns failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.

On October 24, 2006, the Browns filed a complaint as parents and next of kin of their children, Y.B. and J.B., who were students at West Side Elementary School in West Helena in October of 2006.Y.B. was in the sixth grade and J.B. was in the fourth grade.The complaint described an altercation between Y.B. and J.B. and the principal of the school, Lisa Baker.The Browns alleged in their complaint that when Lisa Baker's son, Mack Baker, called J.B. a "nigger," Principal Baker intervened to uphold the conduct of her son and that she physically attacked J.B..The Browns declared that Principal Baker verbally and physically attacked J.B..They concede, however, that J.B. struck Principal Baker.According to the complaint, Y.B. came to the assistance of her younger brother and requested that she be allowed to call her parents.That request was denied by Principal Baker, they alleged.The Browns also alleged that Principal Baker placed Y.B. and J.B. outdoors without any protection and had them arrested.According to the Browns, Principal Baker's actions were due to racism and bias.The Browns based their legal theories on the case of Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee,351 Ark. 31, 91 S.W.3d 472(2002), and on violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act.

Principal Baker wrote a summary of the incident leading to the school's expulsion of J.B. and Y.B. on October 19, 2006.She states the incident occurred on October 19, 2006.¹She wrote in her summary that at around 7:20 a.m., she asked J.B. and Y.B. not to stand in the front lobby of the school, but that they could go to breakfast or to the computer lab or they could sit in the hall.They replied that they were waiting on someone, to which she responded, "[y]ou must go on, we don't wait on anyone."She wrote that both students headed toward the cafeteria, where they both encountered problems.Principal Baker had them to come to the office.She noted that they came back in the hall toward the office and turned around yelling profanities.At that time, J.B. went out the back door of the sixth grade hall, and Y.B. decided to go to the office.Y.B. told Principal Baker, "you better beat me then, because if Brittany is there I'm going to get her."When they got to the office Principal Baker asked Mrs. Hunt to get the tape recorder off her desk.Y.B. told Principal Baker that she was going to break the recorder.At about that time, J.B. arrived in the office and yelled, screamed, and cursed at Principal Baker.

Principal Baker noted that everything then moved to the foyer outside the office.She wrote that Mr. Means arrived and that Ms. Fears and Mrs. Thrower were trying to get other children out of this area.²Principal Baker said that J.B. attacked the visitor sign-in sheet, and Y.B. was trying to take the tape recorder out of her hand.Principal Baker wrote that she told Y.B. she was not going to take it out of her hand, when Y.B. put her hand on her nose (open palm to her nose).At this time, J.B. slapped the left side of Principal Baker's face, and Mr. Means tried to grab him.Principal Baker told Mr. Means to let J.B. go, and J.B. yelled and cursed all the way down the sixth grade hall and kicked the panic bar to get the door open.She added that Y.B. followed J.B. out the door.

Also on October 19, 2006, Principal Baker sent two notices of recommended expulsion from West Side Elementary School to J.B. and Y.B.'s father.In the notice regarding J.B., Principal Baker charged him with defiance of authority, abusive language, and staff assault.In the notice regarding Y.B., she charged her with defiance of authority and abusive language toward a school employee.Principal Baker recommended that both students be expelled for one year.The notices also informed the parents that the students would have a right to a hearing to be scheduled by the school superintendent and School Board.

On October 20, 2006, Rudolph Howard, the school Superintendent, wrote letters to J.B. and Y.B.'s mother regarding each of her children.Superintendent Howard informed Coretta Brown that the school was recommending that her children be expelled for one year and that due-process hearings were scheduled for each of her children and her before the School Board on October 24, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.³He also noted in both letters that he called her on October 20, 2006, at 11:40 a.m., to confirm the appointment and that she hung up the telephone on him the first time and rudely told him to "talk to my lawyer."He added that when he called back a second time, since he did not know who her lawyer was, she hung up on him again.Superintendent Howard's letters further informed Mrs. Brown that her children would have an opportunity to tell their side of the story and present witnesses at the hearing.His letters noted that at the end of the hearings, the School District would state its final position on whether it wished to modify the school's recommendation or continue its quest for expulsion of each of her children.According to the Superintendent's letters, if the School District decided to pursue expulsion further, the Browns could appeal to him as Superintendent.

Rather than participating in the due-process hearing on October 24, 2006, the Browns filed their complaint in circuit court on that date, as described above.On October 26, 2006, the Browns moved for a TRO to stop the expulsion of the Brown children on the basis that the School District was violating their right to attend public school in accordance with Article Fourteen of the Arkansas Constitution.The Browns alleged that the expulsion was harsh, unreasonable, and not rationally related to any conceivable violation of policies governing conduct within the School District.They argued, in addition, that the actions of the School District violated due process and would exclude the Brown children from school, thereby causing irreparable harm to their educational endeavors now and for the rest of their adolescent lives.The Browns requested a TRO until the court could make a determination of the rights pled and that the court further find that the children had suffered irrevocable harm and they had no other adequate remedy at law if the court did not enjoin the School District.

On October 31, 2006, the court entered an order granting the Browns' request for a TRO.In its order, the court noted that the children had not yet been expelled from the school but added that they were currently expelled from classes.In addition to granting the TRO requiring the children to be placed immediately into appropriate classes, the court also found that they should be transferred, as per the request in the motion for TRO, to Beechcrest Elementary School until further directions of the court.

On November 8, 2006, the School District filed its petition for writ of certiorari or prohibition and record of proceedings with the Circuit Court of Phillips County listed as appellee.The following day, this court granted a stay of the TRO, ordered any response to the petition for writ of certiorari/prohibition to be filed by November 20, 2006, and determined that we would take this petition as a case.We also ordered simultaneous briefs to be filed on December 21, 2006.The first response to the School District's petition was filed on behalf of the Browns as "co-respondents" and was tendered on November 21, 2006 which was one day late.⁴The brief of the petitioner was timely filed on December 21, 2006.The Browns did not file a brief in this case.Rather, they filed a second response and objection to issuance of a writ of certiorari on December 28, 2006, and asserted that they were unable to comply with the court's directive to file a brief because there was no record filed.⁵

In its petition for writ of certiorari or prohibition, the School District makes two arguments: (1)petitioners are entitled to a writ of certiorari or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition; (2) on the face of the record, injunctive relief could not be granted by the circuit court.

The School District argues that it is entitled to a petition for writ of certiorari because the expulsion order was not final and because the Browns failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before the School Board prior to seeking judicial review.The School District compares this case to Ford v. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission,335 Ark. 245, 979 S.W.2d 897(1998), where, as in this case, there had been no final action taken by the petitioners.Here, the School District asserts that the Browns chose to avoid the opportunity for a...