Jane Doe A By and Through Jane Doe B v. Special School Dist. of St. Louis County, No. 88-2537

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Before JOHN R. GIBSON and WOLLMAN; WOLLMAN
• Citation: 901 F.2d 642
• Parties: 60 Ed. Law Rep. 20 JANE DOE "A", a minor under age of fourteen, By and Through her Mother and Next Friend, JANE DOE "B"; John Doe "C", a minor under the age of fourteen, by and through his Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe "C"; John Doe "D", a minor under the age of fourteen, by and through his Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe "D"; John Doe "E", a minor under the age of fourteen, by and through his Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe "E"; John Doe "F", a minor under the age of fourteen, by and through his Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe "F"; John Doe "H", a minor under the age of fourteen, by and through his Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe "H"; John Doe "I", a minor under the age of fourteen, by and through his Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe "I"; John Doe "J", a minor under the age of fourteen, by and through his Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe "J"; John Doe "K", a minor under the age of fourteen, by and through his Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe "K"; John Doe "L", a minor under the age of fourteen, by and through his Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe "L"; John Doe "M", a minor under the age of fourteen, by and through his Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe "M"; Jane Doe "B", individually, as Mother of Jane Doe "A"; Jane Doe "C", and Father "C", individually, as parents of John Doe "C"; Jane Doe "D", and Father "D", individually, as parents of John Doe "D"; Jane Doe "E", and Father "E", individually, as parents of John Doe "E"; Jane Doe "F", and Father "F", individually, as parents of John Doe "F"; Jane Doe "G", individually, as Mother of John Doe "G"; Jane Doe "H", and Father "H", individually, as parents of John Doe "H"; Jane Doe "I", individually, as Mother of John Doe "I"; Jane Doe "J", and Father "J", individually, as parents of John Doe "J"; Jane Doe "K", and Father "K", individually, as parents of John Doe "K"; Jane Doe "L", and Father "L", individually, as parents of John Doe "L"; and Jane Doe "M", individually, as Mother of John Doe "M", Appellants, v. The
• Docket Number: No. 88-2537
• Decision Date: 17 April 1990

Page 642

901 F.2d 642 60 Ed. Law Rep. 20 JANE DOE "A", a minor under age of fourteen, By and Through
her Mother and Next Friend, JANE DOE "B"; John Doe "C", a
minor under the age of fourteen, by and through his Mother
and Next Friend, Jane Doe "C"; John Doe "D", a minor under
the age of fourteen, by and through his Mother and Next
Friend, Jane Doe "D"; John Doe "E", a minor under the age
of fourteen, by and through his Mother and Next Friend, Jane
Doe "E"; John Doe "F", a minor under the age of fourteen,
by and through his Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe "F";
John Doe "H", a minor under the age of fourteen, by and
through his Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe "H"; John Doe
"I", a minor under the age of fourteen, by and through his
Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe "I"; John Doe "J", a minor
under the age of fourteen, by and through his Mother and
Next Friend, Jane Doe "J"; John Doe "K", a minor under the
age of fourteen, by and through his Mother and Next Friend,
Jane Doe "K"; John Doe "L", a minor under the age of
fourteen, by and through his Mother and Next Friend, Jane
Doe "L"; John Doe "M", a minor under the age of fourteen,
by and through his Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe "M";
Jane Doe "B", individually, as Mother of Jane Doe "A"; Jane
Doe "C", and Father "C", individually, as parents of John
Doe "C"; Jane Doe "D", and Father "D", individually, as
parents of John Doe "D"; Jane Doe "E", and Father "E",
individually, as parents of John Doe "E"; Jane Doe "F", and
Father "F", individually, as parents of John Doe "F"; Jane
Doe "G", individually, as Mother of John Doe "G"; Jane Doe
"H", and Father "H", individually, as parents of John Doe
"H"; Jane Doe "I", individually, as Mother of John Doe "I";
Jane Doe "J", and Father "J", individually, as parents of
John Doe "J"; Jane Doe "K", and Father "K", individually,
as parents of John Doe "K"; Jane Doe "L", and Father "L",
individually, as parents of John Doe "L"; and Jane Doe "M",
individually, as Mother of John Doe "M", Appellants,
v.
The SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY; Samuel A.
Scarnato, individually, and as Superintendent of The Special
School District of St. Louis County; Shirley Marchlewski,
individually, and as Head of Transportation, North Garage,
The Special School District of St. Louis County; Susan
Stotler, individually, and as Assistant Superintendent of
The Special School District of St. Louis County; Juanita
Campbell, individually, and as Head of Transportation of The
Special School District of St. Louis County; and Joan Hill,
individually, and as Assistant Head of Transportation of The
Special School District of St. Louis, County, Appellees. No. 88-2537. United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit. Submitted June 14, 1989.
Filed April 17, 1990.

Page 643

Ross H. Briggs, St. Louis, Mo., for appellants.

John H. Quinn, St. Louis, Mo., for appellees.

Before JOHN R. GIBSON and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, ^* Senior Circuit Judge.

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs, eleven handicapped children, appeal the district court's ¹ grant of summary judgment in favor of the Special School District of St. Louis County (District), and the five individual defendants: Dr. Samuel Scarnato, Susan Stotler, Shirley Marchlewski, Juanita Campbell, and Joan Hill. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

The District provides educational programs for handicapped children. To carry out these programs, the district utilizes some 220 buses to transport the children to the various schools throughout the District. Some of the handicapped children so transported are placed on the buses in their wheelchairs. Others, because of their inability to control their body movements, are placed in physical restraints for their self-protection during the course of the bus trip. Aides ride on certain of the buses to administer to the needs of those children who might be subject to seizures while on the bus.

David Cerny was a bus driver for the District during the 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 school years. On February 8, 1985, Cerny was arrested for sexual abuse. He later pleaded guilty to charges of child abuse involving five children.

Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging that defendants had deprived them of their right to substantive due process in that Cerny's acts of

Page 644

physical and sexual abuse had deprived them of their liberty interest in personal privacy and bodily security.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, concluding that a rational trier of fact could not find that the individual defendants had notice of, displayed deliberate indifference to, or tacitly authorized the alleged unconstitutional misconduct, or that the District had a policy or custom of ignoring complaints of physical or sexual abuse. ²

The district court's memorandum opinion fairly and accurately sets forth the evidence supporting plaintiffs' allegations, Jane Doe "A", 682 F.Supp. 451, 454-55 (E.D.Mo.1988), and we will only summarize that evidence here.

Defendant Dr. Scarnato, the District's superintendent, received a single complaint from a parent that on one occasion Cerny had cursed at her and called her names in front of the children on the bus. Dr. Scarnato may also have received information from a District employee that Cerny had kissed a child on the bus.

Defendant Campbell, director of transportation, was told by defendant Marchlewski that Cerny had kissed a boy and was also told by Ms. Marchlewski or defendant Hill that Cerny used foul language on the bus.

Defendant Marchlewski, supervisor of the north bus garage, and defendant Hill, supervisor of bus aides at the north garage, received complaints that Cerny used profanity on the bus, had kissed a boy on the bus, and had pushed one of the plaintiffs down the bus steps and pulled his hair. Ms. Marchlewski also received complaints that Cerny had failed to follow a child's behavior modification program and that he had failed to hand out a bus pass; she also received a complaint that Cerny had kissed and kicked a child and had given him a "snuggle." ³ Ms. Hill received a complaint that a child had not been picked up at his bus stop and that Cerny had physically restrained one of the plaintiffs in order to break up a fight.

Defendant Stotler, area coordinator for the District, received many of the same complaints received by the other individual defendants. In addition, in October of 1984 she allegedly received a complaint from a parent that...