Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, M. v. Irving Indep. Sch. Dist., Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-2283-L.

• Citation: 252 F.Supp.3d 602
• Decision Date: 18 May 2017
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-2283-L.
• Parties: Mohamed Elhassan MOHAMED, as next friend FOR A.M., a Minor, Plaintiff, v. IRVING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Daniel Cummings, in his individual capacity, and City of Irving, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

252 F.Supp.3d 602

Mohamed Elhassan MOHAMED, as next friend FOR A.M., a Minor, Plaintiff,

v.IRVING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Daniel Cummings, in his individual capacity, and City of Irving, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-2283-L.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.

Signed May 18, 2017

Susan E. Hutchison, Christopher Edward Stoy, Hutchison & Stoy PLLC, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff.

Kathryn E. Long, Carlos G. Lopez, Melisa E. Meyler, Thompson & Horton LLP, Houston, TX, Thomas P. Brandt, Laura Dahl O'Leary, Stephen D. Henninger, Fanning Harper Martinson Brandt & Kutchin PC, Dallas, TX, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Sam A. Lindsay, United States District Judge

Before the court are: Defendant City of Irving's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8), filed October 6, 2016; Defendant Irving Independent School District's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike (Doc. 10), filed October 11, 2016; Defendant Daniel Cummings's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike (Doc. 11), filed October 11, 2016; and Defendant Irving Independent School District and Daniel Cummings's Joint Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 22), filed December 1, 2016. Having considered the motions, responses,¹ replies, pleadings, record, and applicable law, the court grantsDefendant City of Irving's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8); grantsDefendant Irving Independent School District's Motion to Dismiss and denies as mootits Motion to Strike (Doc. 10); grantsDefendant Daniel Cummings's Motion to Dismiss and denies as moothis Motion to Strike (Doc. 11); and denies as mootDefendant Irving Independent School District and Daniel Cummings's Joint Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 22). Plaintiff will be permitted to file an amended pleading to the extent herein set forth.

I. Background

This is an action for monetary and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Irving Independent School District ("IISD"); Principal Daniel Cummings ("Principal Cummings"), sued in his individual capacity only; and the City of Irving (the "City"). Also, this is an action against the IISD for alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff, Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, a Sudanese immigrant who is now a United States citizen, brings this lawsuit as next friend for his minor son, A.M., who is an African–American Muslim and a former student at McArthur High School ("McArthur"), a public high school in the IISD.²

The lawsuit arises from A.M.'s September 14, 2015 arrest and three-day suspension from McArthur after he brought to school a homemade contraption containing wires and batteries that made a beeping sound. Plaintiff alleges that both the IISD and Principal Cummings violated A.M.'s Fourteenth Amendment constitutional right to equal protection of the laws when Principal Cummings imposed a three-day suspension from school to discipline A.M. after he brought the device to school. In addition to his section 1983 claims against the IISD and Principal Cummings, Plaintiff contends that the IISD violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d ("Title VI"), by discriminating against him on the basis of his race and religion. Plaintiff has also sued the City, alleging violations of A.M.'s rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution in connection with his interrogation and arrest by police officers employed by the City.

The court now sets forth the facts drawn from Plaintiff's Original Complaint ("Complaint"), the live pleading. SeeCompl. (Doc. 1). The court accepts all well-pleaded facts in the Complaint as true and views them in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Sonnier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 509 F.3d 673, 675 (5th Cir. 2007).

A. Allegations Relating to September 14, 2015 Arrest and Suspension of A.M.

On September 14, 2015, A.M., then a 14–year–old freshman, brought a homemade device to school in an "8 ½" by 5" Vaultz pencil box" that included "a 7 segment display, a pcb board, a 9 volt battery, some wires (from a media player that wasn't working), a 120–240 volt transformer, [and] a button board." Compl. ¶ 53. A.M. showed the device to one of his teachers who advised him to keep it in his backpack. Id.¶ 54. Later that same day, notwithstanding the teacher's instruction, A.M. showed the device to another student during a class. Id.The device made a beeping sound and caught the attention of his English teacher, Erin West ("Ms. West"). Id.A.M. showed Ms. West the device after class, and she asked: "[I]s that a bomb?" Id.A.M. told her it was an alarm clock. Id.Ms. West confiscated the device from A.M., and it was held in the administrative offices of the school for several hours. Id.

Later that same day, Principal Cummings and City of Irving police officer Robin Howman ("Officer Howman") removed A.M. from the classroom and escorted him to a room where four or more City police officers and a school counselor were waiting. Id.¶ 56. A.M. was questioned for "almost an hour and a half by the Irving police, despite his repeated pleas for his parents." Id.¶¶ 57–58. A.M. repeatedly informed those present that the device was an alarm clock that he had made to show his English teacher, not a bomb. A.M. never stated the device was anything other than a clock, never threatened anyone with harm, never claimed to have made a bomb, and never attempted to scare or cause alarm to anyone. Id.¶ 57. When he asked for his parents, he was told that he could not speak with them because he was in the middle of an interrogation. Id.¶ 58. During the interrogation, Principal Cummings told A.M. to write a statement and "threatened to expel him if he did not." Id.¶ 59. A.M. was "terrified" and did not want to write anything. Id.Ultimately, because he was threatened and did not have anything to hide, he wrote in a statement that he made an alarm clock that the authorities thought was a bomb. Id.

Despite A.M.'s insistence that the device was an alarm clock, and not a bomb, the police officers present in the room forcefully pulled him out of his chair, handcuffed him, and arrested him. Id.¶ 60. The police officers took A.M. to the police station and "booked him as a criminal, with mug shots and fingerprinting—all still without his parents." Id.

Thereafter, A.M.'s father arrived at the police station and, as he waited to see his son, Officer Howman came to speak with him and informed him that A.M. had been arrested for taking a "hoax bomb" to school and that he was still being processed and fingerprinted. Id.¶ 63. A.M.'s father tried to explain to Officer Howman that A.M. was interested in robotics and created things, but she was unwilling to listen to his explanations. Id.Officer Mitchell then arrived on the scene and repeated to A.M.'s father that A.M. had been arrested for bringing a "hoax bomb" to school, and was similarly unwilling to listen to A.M.'s father's explanations. Id.¶ 64. A.M.'s mother and sister arrived, and the family was able to see A.M. after processing. Id.¶ 65. After seeing their son, they were instructed to leave the premises or risk having charges brought against them. Id.¶ 67.

Later that evening, A.M.'s father received an e-mail from Vice Principal Patrick Smith, stating that A.M. would be suspended from McArthur for three days for violating the Student Code of Conduct by possessing prohibited items. Id.¶ 68. A.M. alleges that he was not in possession of any items prohibited by the Student Code of Conduct. Id.All charges against A.M. were ultimately dropped, and the City of Irving police chief admitted that the arrest of A.M. was a "mistake." Id.

Plaintiff alleges that the "United States Department of Justice has opened an investigation into the conduct of the [IISD], not just with respect to the treatment of [A.M.], but regarding its pattern of discrimination." Id.¶ 69. Plaintiff alleges that the investigation is ongoing. Id.

B. Allegations Relating to Racism in the IISD

According to the Complaint, the IISD has an "ugly history of race struggles," and the State of Texas and the IISD have a "history of discrimination against Muslims in Texas curriculum and schools." Id.¶ 9. Data from the Texas Education Agency ("TEA") show racial disparities in student discipline in the IISD between 2007 and 2015. Id.¶¶ 15–22.

In 2008, the IISD's then-Superintendent entered into a "Memorandum of Understanding" with the Irving Education Coalition in which the IISD agreed that it would have the data showing racial disparities in student discipline and allegations of discrimination based on race analyzed. Id.¶ 23. The IISD hired Dr. Mack Hines ("Dr. Hines") "to provide professional development expertise to teachers on how to develop desired positive behavioral responses from African American students in the classroom." Id.¶ 24. Dr. Hines conducted a study and created a report titled "The Skin They're In." Id.In the report, Dr. Hines "found that the most frequently cited area of racial disparity was school discipline practices" and that African–American students were "reprimanded differently and received suspensions more frequently." Id.¶ 26. Dr. Hines concluded that the findings from his study pointed to "dysconscious racism," which is "knowingly or unknowingly discriminating against people because of race." Id.¶ 28. In September 2011, the Board of Trustees met with Dr. Hines concerning his study and report and "reacted to the negative manner in which the report was received (particularly where it concluded there was an IISD 'race war' between Hispanics and African–Americans) by determining that Dr. Hines went beyond the scope of what he was hired to do, did not use proper methodologies and they declined to implement his recommendations to address the problems." Id.¶ 30.

In 2011, Dr. Steven Jones ("Dr. Jones"), a white male, campaigned for election on the IISD Board of Trustees against Nancy Jones, an African–American female incumbent,...