Masciotta v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 30 September 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 14–CV–7128 (KMK).
• Citation: 136 F.Supp.3d 527
• Parties: Tracy MASCIOTTA, as parent and guardian of V.M., Plaintiff, v. The CLARKSTOWN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Carol Napier, Susan Gold, and Mary Kay Humenn, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

136 F.Supp.3d 527

Tracy MASCIOTTA, as parent and guardian of V.M., Plaintiff,
v.
The CLARKSTOWN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Carol Napier, Susan Gold, and Mary Kay Humenn, Defendants.

Case No. 14–CV–7128 (KMK).

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

Signed Sept. 30, 2015.

136 F.Supp.3d 531

Joseph Raphael DeMatteo, Esq., Bernfeld, DeMatteo & Bernfeld, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Adam I. Kleinberg, Esq., Anthony Francisco Cardoso, Esq., Sokoloff Stern LLP, Carle Place, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge:

Tracy Masciotta has brought this Action as the parent and guardian of V.M. ("Plaintiff") under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York state law, alleging that Carol Napier ("Napier"), Susan Gold ("Gold"), Mary Kay Humenn ("Humenn") (collectively the "Individual Defendants"), and the Clarkstown Central School District (together with Napier, Gold, and Humenn, "Defendants"), violated the United States Constitution and the New York State Constitution and committed a number of state common law torts. Defendants move to dismiss all claims. For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion To Dismiss is granted.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's Complaint and are presumed to be true for the purposes of this Motion. Plaintiff is a 14–year–old student at Clarkstown North High School, which is part of the Clarkstown Central School District (the "School District"). (Compl. ¶ 1 (Dkt. No. 1).) At the time of the events complained of, Napier was a school psychiatrist employed by the School District; Gold was a school social worker employed by the School District; and Humenn was a registered nurse employed by the School District. (Id. ¶¶ 3–5.)

On December 9, 2013, Plaintiff reported to Napier's office "to complete a scheduled test." (Id. ¶ 16.) When Plaintiff entered the office, she "observed that [D.H.], who is a fellow student and friend" was in the office. (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff asked why D.H. was there. (Id. ¶ 18.) Napier responded that D.H. "was on her schedule and that it [was] difficult to explain," and told Plaintiff to leave. (Id. ) Plaintiff left the office. (See id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff later received a phone call from D.H., who told her that Napier "was questioning him about a purported cut on Plaintiff's leg," and that Napier believed Plaintiff had showed D.H. this cut, but that he "denied that he had ever seen such a cut, or knew anything about it." (Id. ¶¶ 19–20.)

Gold then approached Plaintiff, told her that she had been looking for her, and "gestured for Plaintiff to accompany her to the Nurse's Office." (Id. ¶ 21.) When they arrived at the Nurse's Office, Humenn was present, and Gold informed Plaintiff and Humenn "that they were present in the Nurse's Office because there supposedly exist[ed] a carving of a cat on Plaintiff's leg and it need[ed] to be checked." (Id. ¶¶ 22–23.)¹ Plaintiff replied, "No, I don't." (Id. ¶ 24 (internal quotation marks omitted).) Gold responded, "Yes, you have to." (Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).) "Despite there being an unoccupied medical examination room in the Nurse's Office," Humenn "directed

136 F.Supp.3d 532

Plaintiff into a small storage closet" in the Nurse's Office. (Id. ¶ 25.) "Once Plaintiff and ... Humenn entered the closet, ... Humenn closed the door." (Id. ¶ 26.) "Plaintiff inquired as to what to do, and ... Humenn directed Plaintiff to pull her pants down." (Id. ¶ 27.) Plaintiff "lowered her pants to approximately knee level," and Humenn told her to "lower her pants to ... her ankles," and Plaintiff complied. (Id. ) Humenn "inspected Plaintiff's legs," and did not find any cuts or bruises. (Id. ) Humenn "also directed Plaintiff to lift up Plaintiff's shirt." (Id. ¶ 28.) Plaintiff "lift[ed] her shirt up just beneath her brassiere." (Id. ) Humenn "indicated that sometimes girls cut themselves in the area of their breasts, and directed Plaintiff to lift the shirt over her brassiere." (Id. ) Plaintiff complied, and Humenn "inspected the front of Plaintiff's torso," then walked behind Plaintiff, "lifted the shirt up Plaintiff's back, and inspected Plaintiff's back." (Id. ¶¶ 28–29.) Humenn "found no cuts, bruises[,] or unusual marks on Plaintiff's body," and Plaintiff was permitted to exit the closet. (Id. ¶ 30.)

Plaintiff alleges that in carrying out this search "Humenn intentionally both threatened to and did make unwanted physical contact with Plaintiff by directing Plaintiff to lower her pants, and by taking hold of Plaintiff's shirt and raising it above the level of Plaintiff's brassiere." (Id. ¶ 73.) Additionally, Plaintiff claims she "was subjected to unwanted and offensive physical contact and was placed in imminent apprehension of unwanted and offensive physical contact." (Id. ¶ 74.) Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that she was "intentionally confined ... in [a] storage closet," she was "conscious of the confinement," she "did not consent to the confinement," and that the confinement was not privileged. (Id. ¶¶ 81–84.) Plaintiff also claims that that "Gold and Napier directed the strip search of Plaintiff," but she admits that this allegation is based on "the circumstances leading to the strip search of Plaintiff." (Id. ¶ 75.)

When Plaintiff exited the closet into the Nurse's Office, Gold was present and on the phone with Napier. (Id. ¶ 31.) Gold handed Plaintiff the telephone, (id. ¶ 31), and Napier told Plaintiff that she was "not being truthful about cutting herself, and urged Plaintiff to tell the truth, claiming that [D.H.] had told ... Napier that Plaintiff showed [D.H.] the purported cut on Plaintiff's leg," (id. ¶ 32 (internal quotation marks omitted)). Plaintiff stated that "she had no marks on her and had never shown [D.H.] her leg, or any purported cut on her leg." (Id. ) After the phone conversation, Humenn said, "I need to go through your phone," and Plaintiff replied, "No, you don't." (Id. ¶ 33 (internal quotation marks omitted).) Humenn "then searched through Plaintiff's phone, looking at Plaintiff's Instagram account, Facebook account, and all of her photo albums, before returning the phone to Plaintiff." (Id. ¶ 34.) This search also "did not reveal any evidence of self-cutting." (Id. ¶ 35.) Gold then called School Police Officer Matthew Barry, and told him that Plaintiff "had carved a cat into her leg and that the carving was seen in an Instagram photo, but that the search did not reveal any evidence of the carving." (Id. ¶ 36.) Plaintiff "spoke briefly on the telephone with Officer Barry and was then permitted to leave the Nurse's Office." (Id. ¶ 37.) Plaintiff "exited the office and ran out of the school building in tears." (Id. ¶ 38.)

According to Plaintiff, "[a]t no point prior to the search of Plaintiff[ ] did any of the Individual Defendants or any employee of the [District] contact Plaintiff's parents to either discuss the purported cutting, or to obtain permission to conduct the ... strip-search of Plaintiff and search of Plaintiff's telephone." (Id. ¶ 39.) Additionally,

136 F.Supp.3d 533

Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that the District "has neither disciplined any of the Individual Defendants for their clearly unconstitutional and tortious conduct, nor put in place policies to avert future constitutional violations." (Id. ¶ 42.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that "[a]t no point did the [District] or the Individual Defendants provide Plaintiff with any proof of the accusations against her, or allow Plaintiff to dispute such accusation, or object to the unreasonable detention and searches described above." (Id. ¶ 58.)

Plaintiff alleges that the Individual Defendants conspired to deprive Plaintiff of her rights. In particular, she alleges that the "wrongful acts, omissions and Constitutional deprivations committed by the Defendants were part and parcel of an agreement and conspiracy between the various Individual Defendants to maliciously violate Plaintiff's civil rights." (Id. ¶ 46.) Plaintiff further alleges upon information and belief that "each of the Individual Defendants was aware of, agreed to and/or approved of at least one overt act in furtherance of their conspiracy to deprive ... Plaintiff of her Constitutional rights." (Id. )

Plaintiff alleges two bases for liability of the District. First, Plaintiff generally alleges that the School District and its agents and employees "developed and maintained policies and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of Plaintiff and other students similarly situated." (Id. ¶ 54; see also id. ¶ 59 (alleging that the District, and its agents and employees "developed and maintained policies and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of Plaintiff and other students similarly situated, which caused a violation of Plaintiff's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights").) Second, Plaintiff alleges that the School District is liable under respondeat superior because the "Individual Defendants were acting within the scope of their employment" with the School District "when they committed the wrongful acts." (Id. ¶ 65; see also id. ¶¶ 70, 78, 87, 92, 98, 103.)

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that she has "suffered mental anguish resulting in depression, loss of appetite, loss of...