Herrera v. Santa Fe Pub. Sch.
| Decision Date | 29 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 11–0422 JB/KBM.,CIV 11–0422 JB/KBM. |
| Citation | 41 F.Supp.3d 1188 |
| Parties | Candice HERRERA, T.H., a minor by and through her father and guardian Vincent Herrera, Ashley Hurtado, Arianna London, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SANTA FE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Santa Fe Public Schools Board of Education, Barbara Gudwin, Glenn Wikle, Linda Trujillo, Frank Montano, Steven J. Carrillo, in their official capacities as members of the Santa Fe Public Schools Board of Education, Bobbie J. Gutierrez, in her official capacity as Superintendent of Santa Fe Public Schools, Melanie Romero, individually and in her official capacity as Principal of Capital High School, Robert Stephens, in his official capacity as Principal of Santa Fe High School as a necessary party for complete relief, ASI New Mexico, LLC, John/Jane Doe Nos. 1–8, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Aimee Bevan, Friel & Levy, P.C., Reed N. Colfax, Relman, Dane & Colfax PLLC, Santa Fe, NM, Megan Cacace, Relman, Dane & Colfax PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs.
Andrew M. Sanchez, Sr., Matthew Lee Campbell, Cuddy & McCarthy, LLP, Albuquerque, NM, Gerald A. Coppler, Coppler Law Firm, P.C., Santa Fe, NM, for Defendants, Santa Fe Public Schools Board of Education, Barbara Gudwin, Glenn Wikle, Linda Trujillo, Frank Montano, Steven J. Carrillo, Bobbie J. Gutierrez, and Melanie Romero.
Terry R. Guebert, Alisa Wigley–Delara, Christopher J. DeLara, Guebert Bruckner, P.C., Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant, ASI New Mexico, LLC.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Santa Fe Public Schools Board of Education's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 100], filed March 3, 2014 (Doc. 187) (“MSJ”). The Court held a hearing on April 8, 2014. The primary issues are: (i) whether evidence in the record supports the Plaintiffs Candice Herrera, T. H., a minor by and through her father and guardian Vincent Herrera, Ashley Hurtado, and Arianna London's allegation that Defendants Santa Fe Public Schools Board of Education, Barbara Gudwin, Glen Wikle, Linda Trujillo, Frank Montano, Steven J. Carrillo, Bobbie J. Gutierrez, Melanie Romero and Leslie Kilmer (collectively “the SFPS Defendants”), each of which remain in this case in their official capacities as employees or members of the Santa Fe Public Schools Board of Education, are responsible, under Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), for certain searches that the Plaintiffs allegedly endured at the 2011 Capital High School Prom (“CHS Prom”); and (ii) if they are responsible, whether the Court should limit the Plaintiffs' recovery to nominal damages. The Court will grant the MSJ in part and deny it in part. The Court concludes that there is sufficient evidence in the record from which a reasonable jury could find that the SFPS Defendants had a custom or practice of conducting suspicionless pat-down searches before school events; that this policy caused the Plaintiffs' injuries, insofar as they relate to the suspicionless nature of the searches; and that the SFPS Defendants acted with the requisite state of mind. There is not, however, sufficient evidence in the record for which a jury could reasonably hold the SFPS Defendants accountable for the invasive manner in which Defendant ASI New Mexico, LLC's officers conducted the pat-down searches. The Court will not limit the Plaintiffs' potential recovery to nominal damages, because there is sufficient evidence on which a reasonable jury could hold that the Plaintiffs have suffered compensable harm beyond the abstract harm to their constitutional rights and that the SFPS Defendants caused some percentage of that separate harm. Finally, the Court will deny the MSJ as to that portion of the Plaintiffs' claims that relates to possession searches and seizures. The SFPS Defendants only cursorily refer to those claims in the MSJ, leaving the argument substantially undeveloped until the Santa Fe Public School Board of Education's Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, filed April 7, 2014 (Doc. 203) (“Reply”). Moreover, on the merits, a reasonable jury could find that the SFPS Defendants had a custom or practice of conducting suspicionless possession searches and seizures before school events, that this policy injured the Plaintiffs, and that the SFPS Defendants acted with the requisite state of mind.
The Court will first provide those facts that it deems undisputed for purposes of this motion as they are found in the MSJ and in the Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Santa Fe Public Schools Board of Education's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, filed March 20, 2014 (Doc. 192) (“Response”). It will discuss, where appropriate, the SFPS Defendants' factual arguments in their Reply.2
1. The Undisputed Facts.
The Court will discuss the undisputed facts in several parts. The Court will first discuss the organization of Capital High School (“CHS”) and the Santa Fe public school board, its arrangement with ASI New Mexico, and these organizations' knowledge of search procedure. It will then discuss the searches of the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs' mindset, and the searches' effects on the Plaintiffs. Finally, the Court will discuss parental complaints about the CHS Prom.
“Capital High School (‘CHS') is a secondary school located in Santa Fe, New Mexico and is in the Santa Fe Public School District.” MSJ ¶ 2, at 4 (); Response ¶ 2, at 2 (). See Second Amended Complaint ¶¶ 18–20, at 5–6, filed September 18, 2012 (Doc. 100) (“Complaint”). “Defendant School Board is the governing body of SFPS with sole, statutory, policy-making authority for SFPS.” MSJ ¶ 3, at 4 (). See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 22–5–4.3 “Defendant Melanie Romero, principal of CHS at the time of the [CHS] Prom,” lacked formal statutory authority to make policies within SFPS, although she had some de facto authority to make decisions to ensure her students' safety. See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 22–10A–18 (); Videotaped Deposition of Bobbie J. Gutierrez at 121:8–12 (taken March 22, 2012), filed March 20, 2014 (Doc. 192–5) ( ) ( that principals “are the CEOs of their schools, and that they need to make some decisions that will insure” their students' safety).4
“In 2004, SFPS contracted with ASI to provide security services for SFPS on school grounds and at school-sponsored events.” Response ¶ 13, at 9 (). See Gutierrez Depo. Vol. I at 80:22–24; Deposition of Martin “Mark” Archuleta at 51:8–52:2, taken March 9, 2012, filed March 20, 2014 (Doc. 192–2) ( ); Reply ¶ 13, at 16 ().5 “At the beginning of its contract with ASI,” school officials “and then-Superintendent [Gloria] Rendon instructed ASI that pat-down searches were to be conducted of all students entering” school “dances.” Response ¶ 14, at 16 (). See Deposition of Micah Johnson at 84:10–85:15, taken January 16, 2014, filed March 20, 2014 (Doc. 192–11) (“Johnson Depo.”); id. at 89:13–22;6 Deposition of Martin “Mark” Archuleta at 168:2–169:8 (taken January 30, 2014), filed March 20, 2014 (Doc. 192–3) ( ); id. at 182:2–11. “Based on” directives from SFPS officials, “ASI representatives understood that pat-down searches had long been part of ... standard search practices” in the SFPS “and that ASI was expected to continue those practices.” Response ¶ 15, at 16 ().7 “ASI officials agreed that” the existing “blanket pat-down rule should be applied at SFPS proms.” Response ¶ 16, at 10 (). See Archuleta Depo. Vol. I at 118:6–20.8
“ASI trained its employees” in a manner consistent with certain “written Pat Down Guidelines when performing searches at SFPS events.” Response ¶ 18, at 10 ().9 Johnson Depo. at 73:18–25. “The Pat Down Guidelines require bra searches of female subjects in which the front of the bra is pulled away from the body.” Response ¶ 19, at 16 (). See “Pat Down” Guidelines, no date provided, filed March 20, 2014 (Doc. 192–24).10
“The Pat Down Guidelines indicate that it is ‘important to be vigilant’ and state that students have hidden contraband on ‘the inside of their legs.’ ” Response ¶ 20, at 16 () (quoting “Pat Down” Guidelines at 1).11 “The principals of Capital High School and Santa Fe High School reviewed the written Pat Down Guidelines.” Response ¶ 21, at 18 (). See Gutierrez Depo. Vol. II at 213:13–214:11; id. at 215:5–9.12 “The Pat Down Guidelines are consistent with the training SFPS administrators received regarding SFPS's pat-down procedure.” Response ¶ 22, at 11. See Gutierrez Depo. Vol. II at 216:17–217:4.13 When asked after the event, “Superintendent Gutierrez ha[d] no objection to any aspect of the Pat Down Guidelines.” Response ¶ 23, at 11 (). See Gutierrez Depo. Vol. II at 217:5–17.14 “SFPS officials reviewed and were familiar with ASI's pat-down methods.” Response ¶ 24, at 17 ().15 Deposition of Melanie Romero at 48:16–49:19 (taken March 19, 2012), filed March 20, 2014 (Doc. 192–19) (“Romero Depo.”).
“The same search procedures, which included pat-downs of all students, were followed at Santa Fe High School and Capital High School proms every year for at least sixteen...
To continue reading
Request your trial