Mazanec v. North Judson-San Pierre School Corp.
| Decision Date | 14 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. S 81-0219. |
| Citation | 552 F. Supp. 873 |
| Parties | Richard MAZANEC, Barbara Mazanec, Patricia Mazanec, Susan Mazanec, and Angela Mazanec and the Greenhouse Academy, Inc., a Not-For-Profit Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. NORTH JUDSON-SAN PIERRE SCHOOL CORPORATION, James F. Moore, Superintendent, North Judson-San Pierre Schools, David M. Geisler, Prosecuting Attorney for the 44th Judicial Circuit of the State of Indiana, and Marilyn V. Mabry, State Attendance Officer for the State of Indiana, Each of Whom is Sued Individually and in His/Her Official Capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Edward McBlynee Gaffney, Jr., Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame, Ind., Charles E. Rice, Professor of Law, Notre Dame, Ind., for plaintiffs.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Ind., B. Patrick Maloy, Knox, Ind., for defendants.
This case is an action brought by private parties against the North Judson-San Pierre School Corporation and various public officials. In addition to compensatory and punitive damages, plaintiffs seek both declaratory and injunctive relief as well as costs and attorney fees. The plaintiffs are Richard and Barbara Mazanec, parents of Patricia, Susan and Angela Mazanec, and the Greenhouse Academy, a not-for-profit school incorporated by Richard and Barbara Mazanec under the laws of the State of Indiana. The defendants are the North Judson-San Pierre School Corporation; its Superintendent, James F. Moore; David M. Geisler, Prosecuting Attorney for the 44th Judicial Circuit of the State of Indiana; and Marilyn V. Mabry, Indiana State Attendance Officer. The above named defendants are being sued in both their individual and official capacities. The jurisdiction of this Court is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(1)-(4), and the cause of action is alleged to arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This case is presently before the Court on defendants motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Construing the facts in a light most favorable to the non-movant plaintiffs reveals the following.
Barbara Mazanec is a Jehovah's Witness. Because of sincerely held religious beliefs, she and her husband, Richard, founded the Greenhouse Academy in 1979 and enrolled their three children therein rather than send them to the North Judson-San Pierre public schools. The Greenhouse Academy supplements State mandated curricula with religious and moral instruction. Barbara Mazanec is the Academy's principal.
On August 29, 1980, defendant Moore sent a letter to the plaintiffs, informing them that the North Judson-San Pierre public schools had begun classes on August 25, 1980, and that the children of Richard and Barbara Mazanec were not enrolled among the students attending the above-named public schools. Defendant Moore advised the plaintiffs that they had ten days from the date of the receipt of his letter in which to enroll the children in the North Judson-San Pierre public schools or to provide him with evidence that the children were otherwise enrolled in a school complying with the requirements set forth at I.C. 20-8.1-3-17.
On September 10, 1980, plaintiffs sent a letter to defendant Moore explaining that their children would be enrolled later that month in a school complying with the above statute (the Greenhouse Academy operates on an academic calendar year beginning approximately five weeks later than the public school's calendar), and offered to provide him with further information during the next 20 days.
Nonetheless, and notwithstanding this response, defendant Moore signed an affidavit in support of a criminal information on September 22, 1980, declaring that the plaintiffs had unlawfully permitted their children to be absent from the North Judson-San Pierre public schools. On that date, defendant Geisler filed a criminal action in state court against the plaintiffs, Richard and Barbara Mazanec, alleging a violation of the state's compulsory school attendance law, a Class B misdemeanor.
On March 30, 1981, defendant Mabry acknowledged the fact that plaintiffs were "in compliance with the law" in a letter sent to the Mazanecs. Even so, the criminal action pending against the plaintiffs in state court was not dismissed until September 25, 1981, more than 11 months after the plaintiffs first filed said motion. Although no criminal action is presently pending in state court against the plaintiffs, defendant Geisler has allegedly threatened future prosecution against them.
Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, speech, and association in educational endeavors have been violated by the defendants acting or failing to act under color of state law, thereby constituting a denial of due process of law; that the plaintiffs have been subjected to selective prosecution resulting in a denial of due process of law; that the plaintiffs have been subject to selective prosecution resulting in a denial of equal protection of the laws; and that the actions of the defendants have injured not only the plaintiffs' reputations, but have caused them physical and emotional distress as well.
The defendants argue in support of their motions to dismiss or for summary judgment that this Court lacks both in personam jurisdiction over the defendants as well as subject matter jurisdiction, and that the plaintiffs' amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants contend that the only genuine issues appearing before this Court are (1) whether the plaintiffs were in compliance with I.C. 20-8.1-3-1 et seq. on September 22, 1980, and (2) whether the plaintiffs were in compliance with I.C. 20-8.1-3-17 and I.C. 20-8.1-3-34 after September 29, 1980. Thus, defendants maintain that this case turns on the sole question of whether there has been compliance with Indiana law. In addition, the defendants argue that a qualified immunity exists for the defendants because of their allegedly good faith actions in this matter.
Because defendants Geisler and Mabry have framed their Motion to Dismiss in the alternative to include a Motion for Summary Judgment, and defendants Moore and North Judson-San Pierre School Corporation have supported their Motion to Dismiss with the affidavit of defendant Moore, the motions to dismiss of all defendants are hereby converted to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In order for defendants to prevail on their motions for summary judgment, a careful review of "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, must show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendants Moore and North Judson-San Pierre School Corporation argue that a school corporation is not a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, citing Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961) in support thereof. This Court directs defendants' attention to Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), wherein the Supreme Court expressly overruled Monroe v. Pape, supra, in holding that municipalities and other local governing bodies are "persons" within the meaning of § 1983. 436 U.S. at 690, 98 S.Ct. at 2035-2036. Subsequent decisions of other Courts have expressly declared school districts and their governing boards to be subject to actions filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Kingsville Independent School District v. Cooper, 611 F.2d 1109 (5th Cir.1980); Stoddard v. School District No. 1, Lincoln County, Wyoming, 590 F.2d 829 (10th Cir.1979).
Defendant Moore also argues that he acted at all times in good faith in the performance of his duties. However, such a matter is clearly a question of fact, not law. The pleadings reveal that Barbara Mazanec informed defendant Moore by letter dated September 10, 1980, that her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. Metropolitan School Dist. of Shakamak
...of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Mazanec v. North Judson-San Pierre School Corporation, 552 F.Supp. 873, 876 (N.D.Indiana 1982). But, to apply the five year statute to the present facts, as urged by the plaintiff, the Court must......
-
Mazanec v. North Judson-San Pierre School Corp.
...ALLEN SHARP, Chief Judge. I. This case has now been the subject of a published opinion of this court in Mazanec v. North Judson-San Pierre School Corporation, 552 F.Supp. 873 (1982), and two published opinions by the United States Court of Appeals for this Circuit. See Mazanec v. North Juds......
- Carder v. Michigan City School Corp.