I.S. v. Binghamton City Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 14 September 2020
• Docket Number: 19-CV-0513 (GTS/ATB)
• Citation: 486 F.Supp.3d 575
• Parties: I.S., a minor BY AND THROUGH her mother Anais DISLA; J.B., a minor by and through her parents Ibelyh Disla and Jose Bristol; I.M., a minor by and through her mother Zulayka McKinstry; and A.S., a minor by and through her mother Chanderlia Silva, Plaintiffs, v. BINGHAMTON CITY SCH. DIST.; Binghamton Bd. of Educ.; Tim Simonds ; Michelle Raleigh; and Mary Ellen Eggleston, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

486 F.Supp.3d 575

I.S., a minor BY AND THROUGH her mother Anais DISLA; J.B., a minor by and through her parents Ibelyh Disla and Jose Bristol; I.M., a minor by and through her mother Zulayka McKinstry; and A.S., a minor by and through her mother Chanderlia Silva, Plaintiffs,

v.BINGHAMTON CITY SCH. DIST.; Binghamton Bd. of Educ.; Tim Simonds ; Michelle Raleigh; and Mary Ellen Eggleston, Defendants.

19-CV-0513 (GTS/ATB)

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Signed September 14, 2020

OF COUNSEL: AMANDA L. GAYER, ESQ., CHANWOO PARK, ESQ., JAMIE A. LEVITT, ESQ., JOSHUA HILL, JR., ESQ., MORRISON & FOERSTER, Counsel for Plaintiffs, 250 West 55th Street, New York, NY 10019.

OF COUNSEL: KRISTEN A. JOHNSON, ESQ., RACHEL KLEINMAN, ESQ., CARA McCLELLAN, ESQ., NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND, INC., Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs, 40 Rector Street, Floor 5, New York, NY 10006.

OF COUNSEL: ASHLEY K. BOISVERT, ESQ., JOHN P. COGHLAN, ESQ., SHANNON T. O'CONNOR, ESQ., GOLDBERG SEGALLA, Counsel for Defendants, 5786 Widewaters Parkway, Syracuse, NY 13214.

DECISION and ORDER

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge

Currently before the Court, in this civil rights action filed by Anais Disla as the natural mother of the infant I.S. ("Plaintiff I.S."), Ibelyh Disla and Jose Bristol as the natural parents of the infant J.B. ("Plaintiff J.B."), Zulayka McKinstry as the natural mother of the infant I.M. ("Plaintiff I.M."), and Chanderlia Silva as the natural mother of the infant A.S. ("Plaintiff A.S.") (collectively "Plaintiffs") against the Binghamton City School District ("the District"), three of its employees ("Defendant Simonds" "Defendant Raleigh" and "Defendant Eggleston"), and its Board of Education (collectively "Defendants"), is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the fourth and fifth causes of action of Plaintiffs’ Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and their motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action and part of the first cause of action of Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). (Dkt. No. 44.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is denied and Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted in part and denied in part.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Summary of Plaintiffs’ Complaint

Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges as follows. (See generally Dkt. No. 1 [Plfs.’ Compl.].)

On January 15, 2019, at East Middle School in Binghamton, New York, four twelve-year-old girls (Plaintiffs A.S., I.S., I.M., and J.B.) were walking in the hallway from the cafeteria towards their lunch activity when they were stopped by the school's Principal, Defendant Simonds, as well as the school's Assistant Principal, Defendant Raleigh. (Id. ) During the ensuing conversation, Defendant Simonds told the girls he had been looking for them and then, with Defendant Raleigh, escorted them to the health office, where Defendant Eddleston was located. (Id. ) At the health office, Defendants Simonds, Raleigh, and Eddleston whispered amongst themselves before Defendant Eggleston brought each individual Plaintiff into the health office for a separate closed-door, search and examination. (Id. ) No Plaintiff was informed of the purpose of the search, nor were Plaintiffs’ parents and/or guardians notified. (Id. ) Additionally, Plaintiffs’ parents and/or guardians did not provide consent prior to the search itself. (Id. )

The extent of the search and examination varied with each individual Plaintiff and ranged from a variety of sobriety tests to "strip" searches of the infant Plaintiffs. (Id. ) Defendant Raleigh was present for portions of the search and examination of Plaintiffs I.S., I.M., and A.S., as compared to Defendant Simonds, who stayed in the health office during the search of each individual Plaintiff. (Id. ) After the searches and examinations were completed, Defendant Simonds sent Plaintiffs I.S., I.M. and A.S. back to class, and he placed Plaintiff J.B., without explanation, on in-school suspension. (Id. ) Plaintiffs A.S. and J.B. returned to East Middle School on January 16, 2019, but were afraid to return to school thereafter because they each felt it was too unsafe to return; Plaintiffs I.M. and I.S. did not return to school at all for the same reason. (Id. ) Each Plaintiff identifies as a racial minority while each individual Defendant is identified as Caucasian. (Id. )

After the events of January 15, 2019, the School Board held a meeting on January 22, 2019, during which Plaintiffs and their parents spoke with Superintendent Tonia Thompson. (Id. ) Plaintiffs’ parents requested Plaintiffs’ immediate transfer to West Middle School, the only other middle school within the District that is not an alternative school. (Id. ) Plaintiffs were instead assigned to the Columbus School, which provides alternative educational services. (Id. ) On January 24, 2019, Plaintiffs began attending the Columbus School. (Id. ) Although Plaintiffs I.S. and A.S. have individualized education plans, no accommodations were provided during their time at the Columbus School. (Id. ) After a meeting with Plaintiffs’ parents on February 8, 2019, Plaintiffs were transferred to West Middle School as of February 11, 2019, approximately one month after the allegedly unlawful searches and examinations. (Id. )

Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiffs assert five claims against Defendants: (1) a claim for an unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment against all Defendants; (2) a claim for intentional discrimination violation of the Equal Protection Clause against all Defendants; (3) a claim for intentional discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, against the District and Board of Education ("School Defendants"); (4) a claim for a violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") with regard to Plaintiffs I.S. and A.S. against the School Defendants; and (5) a claim for a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act with regards to Plaintiffs I.S. and A.S. against the School Defendants. (Id. ) Familiarity with the factual allegations supporting these claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint is assumed in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for review by the parties. (Id. )

B. Parties’ Briefing on Defendants’ Motions

Generally, in support of their motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and motion for judgment on the pleadings, Defendants assert the following four arguments: (1) Plaintiffs I.S. and A.S.’s fourth and fifth causes of action must be dismissed because (a) the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over those causes of action in that Plaintiffs I.S. and A.S. failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with regard to them, or (b) in the alternative, Plaintiffs I.S. and A.S. have failed to state a claim by failing to plead facts plausibly suggesting that I.S. and A.S. violated the District's code of conduct; (2) Plaintiffs first cause of action must be dismissed because (a) Plaintiffs J.B. and A.S. have not pled a Fourth Amendment violation premised on a strip search, (b) Defendant Raleigh and Defendant Simonds were not personally involved in the searches of Plaintiffs (based on Plaintiffs’ factual allegations), and (c) Plaintiffs have not pled a Monell claim against the School Defendants in that (i) Plaintiffs have failed to identify a custom, policy, or practice that deprived students of a constitutional right, and (ii) Plaintiffs have not pled facts plausibly suggesting a failure to train the individual Defendants; (3) Plaintiffs second cause of action must be dismissed due to their failure to state a claim for intentional discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI because (a) Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts plausibly suggesting purposeful discrimination and discriminatory intent, and (b) the statistics cited by Plaintiffs are irrelevant because the data is three to four years old, and refers to overall student discipline, not searches of individual students; and (4) Plaintiffs’ official capacity claims against the individual Defendants must be dismissed because they are duplicative of Plaintiffs’ claims against the School Defendants. (See generally Dkt. No. 44-1 [Defs.’ Memo. of Law].) For these reasons, Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first (in part), second, third, fourth, and fifth claims with prejudice. (See generally id. )

Generally, in opposition to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs assert the following six arguments: (1) Plaintiffs have pled facts plausibly suggesting that Defendants unlawfully searched each individual Plaintiff in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that Defendants Simonds and Raleigh directly participated in the searches; (2) Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled municipal liability claims against the School Defendants based on both a final-policymaker theory, and a failure-to-train-or-supervise theory; (3) Plaintiffs’ official capacity claims against the individual Defendants are not duplicative of their claims against the School Defendants because Plaintiffs seek prospective injunctive relief against the Individual Defendants in their official capacity; (4) Plaintiffs have pled facts plausibly suggesting an inference of intentional discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI because they have alleged that the conduct before and during the searches was motivated, at least in part, by discriminatory bias; (5) Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled IDEA and Section 504 claims because the procedural protections relating to a change in school placement under the IDEA and Section 504 were not met with respect to Plaintiffs A.S. and I.S.; and (6) the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ fourth and fifth causes of action because P...