Hill v. Madison Cnty. Sch. Bd.

• Decision Date: 24 October 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 5:10-cv-02593-TMP
• Parties: JAMES HILL, as Guardian and next friend of B.H.J., a minor, Plaintiff, v. MADISON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

JAMES HILL, as Guardian and next friend of B.H.J., a minor, Plaintiff, v. MADISON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 5:10-cv-02593-TMP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

DONE: October 24, 2013

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This action is before the court on a motion for partial summary judgment filed on July 26, 2013, by defendant June Ann Simpson ("Simpson") (doc. 106). Simpson seeks judgment in her favor and dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against her under counts VI and VIII.¹ On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff responded in a single document (Doc. 108) to Simpson's motion for summary judgment and to the court's Order Regarding Rule 56(f). Plaintiff's response opposes the court's proposal to grant summary judgment to Simpson on counts VI and VIII in congruence with the court's grant of summary judgment to defendant Jeanne Dunaway on the same claims. All parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Having considered the pleadings and the evidence and arguments submitted by all parties, the court finds that the motion for partial summary judgment is due to be granted.

I. Summary Judgment Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is proper "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The party asking for summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. V. Catrett, 47 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). The movant can meet this burden by presenting evidence showing there is no dispute of material fact or by showing that the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. There is no requirement, however, "that the moving party support its motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent's claim." Id. at 323.

Once the moving party has met its burden, Rule 56 "requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions of file,' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 324 (quoting former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). The nonmoving party need not present evidence in a form necessary for admission at trial; however, he may not merely rest on his pleadings. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. "[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Id. at 322.

After the plaintiff has properly responded to a proper motion for summary judgment, the court "shall" grant the motion if there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The substantive law will identify which facts are material and which are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. at 248. "[T]he judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 249. His guide is the same standard necessary to direct a verdict: "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Id. at 251-252; see also Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 461 U.S. 731, 745 n. 11 (1983).

However, the nonmoving party "must do more than show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The evidence supporting a claim must be "substantial," Marcus v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 379 (5th Cir., Unit B, 1981); a mere scintilla of evidence is not enough to create a genuine issue of fact. Young v. City of Palm Bay, 358 F.3d 859, 860 (11th Cir. 2004); Kesinger ex rel. Estate of Kesinger v. Herrington, 381 F.3d 1243, 1249-1250 (11th Cir. 2004). If the non-movant's evidence is so thoroughly discredited by the rest of the record evidence that no reasonable jury could accept it, the evidence fails to establish the existence of a genuine issue of fact requiring a jury determination. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1776, 167 L. Ed. 2d 686 (2007) ("Respondent's version of events is so utterly discredited by the record that no reasonable jury could have believed him. The Court of Appeals should not have relied on suchvisible fiction; it should have reviewed the facts in the light depicted by the videotape."); Lewis v. City of West Palm Beach, Fla., 561 F.3d 1288, 1290 n. 3 (11th Cir. 2009). If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249 (citations omitted); accord Spence v. Zimmerman, 873 F.2d 256 (11th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, the court must "view the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden," so there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. The non-movant need not be given the benefit of every inference but only of every reasonable inference. Brown v. City of Clewiston, 848 F.2d 1534, 1540 n. 12 (11th Cir. 1988).

The failure to respond to a motion for summary judgment is not enough, in itself, to justify granting summary judgment. Indeed, Rule 56(a) instructs that the court shall grant summary judgment only "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (emphasis added). Thus, a court "may neither grant nor deny summary judgment by default." James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice, § 56.99[b] (3d ed. 1997). As noted by the Advisory Committee, "summary judgment cannot be granted by default even if there is a complete failure to respond to the motion, much less when an attempted response fails to comply with Rule 56(c) requirements." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory committee's note (emphasis added). Because "the district court cannot base the entry of summary judgment on the mere fact that it is unopposed, it must consider the merits of the motion." United States v. one Piece of Real Prop. Located at 5800 SW 74th Ave., Miami, Fla., 363 F.3d 1099, 1101-02 (11th Cir. 2004). Utilizing these standards, the court undertakes the analysis of whether the defendant has shown that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

II. Facts for Summary Judgment Purposes

Applying these standards to the evidence before the court, the following facts are treated as undisputed and taken in a light favorable to the non-moving plaintiff.²

At the time of the events giving rise to this action, in January 2010, the minor plaintiff, BHJ, was a 14-year-old female student in the eighth grade at Sparkman Middle School ("Sparkman"). The school is operated by Madison County School Board. Defendant June Ann Simpson was a teacher's aide at the school. Defendant Jeanne Dunaway was an assistant principal. Another defendant who was previously dismissed from this action without prejudice was CJC, a 16-year-old male student in the eighth grade at Sparkman. This case arises out of the events leading up to and including CJC's sexual assault of BHJ in a boys' restroom during school hours on January 22, 2010.

CJC had a troubled academic and disciplinary history at Sparkman. He came to the attention of Sparkman administrators for disciplinary action at least fourteen times, including at least four instances raising questions about sexual harassment of female students. Just after the Thanksgiving holiday in 2009, rumors began to circulate that CJC was soliciting girls to meet him to have sex during school hours. Simpson testifies that she was made aware of the rumors "after the [2009] Christmas break." (Simpson. Aff. ¶ 4.) The rumors escalated in early January 2010, and Simpson reported the rumors to Principal Blair, who told her that CJC had to be "caught in the act" before disciplinary action could be taken against him. Principal Blair investigated a rumor that CJC was "hooking up" with a female student in the boys' restroom for the purpose of having sex, but bothstudents involved denied the rumor and no other student had first-hand knowledge. Even so, Blair informed Assistant Principal Terrell and other administrators and faculty to be on a "heightened state of alert" about CJC's activities, and he re-directed a security camera to view down the special-needs hallway.

On January 13, 2010, a female student reported that CJC had touched her inappropriately on the thigh. Defendant Assistant Principals Dunaway and Terrell interviewed the girl who made the report and also interviewed other students who were identified as possibly having knowledge of the event. (Dunaway, pp. 36-37, 77; Terrell pp. 144-46). Each witness denied that he or she had seen anything inappropriate between CJC and another student and had no actual knowledge of the incident. (Dunaway, pp. 39-40; Terrell, pp. 145-146). As a precautionary measure, Terrell and Dunaway placed CJC in...