Moreno v. Mcallen Indep. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:15-CV-162 |
| Parties | JUDITH MORENO, et al, Plaintiffs, v. MCALLEN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss filed by McAllen Independent School District ("Defendant" or "McAllen ISD"). The first is a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)1 and the second is a motion to dismiss claims barred by the Texas Torts Claims Act.2 Judith Moreno ("Ms. Moreno") and Jose Ramiro Moreno (collectively, "Plaintiffs") responded timely to the motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6),3 to which McAllen ISD replied.4 Plaintiffs failed to respond to the motion to dismiss claims barred by the Texas Torts Claims Act. After considering the motions, response, reply, record, and relevant authorities, the Court GRANTS McAllen ISD's motions to dismiss.
The following facts are recited by the Court as pleaded by Plaintiffs in their first amended complaint.5 Ms. Moreno is the mother of Jose Ramiro Moreno.6 Jose Ramiro Moreno was a student at McAllen High School when, "in early 2012 and continuing through the school-year, Ezekiel Gonzalez, while under the employment, supervision, and control of [McAllen ISD] as a teacher, sought after and sexually violated Jose Ramiro Moreno."7 The inappropriate sexual conduct between Ezekiel Gonzalez ("Gonzalez"), a teacher, and Jose Ramiro Moreno, a minor at that time, allegedly began on a school trip to a debate tournament in San Antonio.8 The conduct continued after the trip, including on campus at McAllen High School.9 Ms. Moreno "promptly informed" school officials, who then "feigned an 'investigation into the matter' by, in an intimidating manner, pulling Jose Ramiro Moreno, out of class and questioning him."10 Ms. Moreno accuses McAllen ISD of failing to take action against Gonzalez and choosing, instead, to drop their investigation.
On April 15, 2015, Ms. Moreno filed the instant lawsuit as next friend of Jose Ramiro Moreno.11 McAllen ISD subsequently filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7), objecting to Ms. Moreno bringing this lawsuit as next friend of JoseRamiro Moreno because he was no longer a minor and did not lack capacity to sue.12 Ms. Moreno responded by filing an unopposed motion for leave, requesting that the Court grant her permission to amend the complaint in order to add Jose Ramiro Moreno as an appropriate plaintiff.13 The Court granted the motion for leave to amend and denied the 12(b)(7) motion to dismiss as moot.14 Plaintiffs then filed their first amended complaint, adding Jose Ramiro Moreno as an additional plaintiff.15
On June 4, 2015, McAllen ISD filed the Rule 12(b)(6) motion now being considered.16 McAllen ISD simultaneously filed an answer.17 Plaintiffs timely responded to the first motion to dismiss on June 24, 2015.18 Shortly thereafter, McAllen ISD filed the second motion to dismiss.19 Plaintiffs did not respond. Plaintiffs instead filed another motion for leave to amend, requesting the Court allow them to include Ezekiel Gonzalez, the teacher who allegedly sexually assaulted Jose Ramiro Moreno, as an individual defendant.20 The Court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiffs' actions were tainted with bad faith and constituted undue delay.21
Plaintiffs' amended complaint filed on June 1, 2015 asserts causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX").22 Plaintiffs also assert state tort claims of assault and battery, negligence and negligence per se, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court briefly addresses each claim.
With regards to the Section 1983 claim, Plaintiffs allege that Gonzalez "was the agent and employee of [McAllen ISD] and was acting under color of state law."23 Throughout the complaint, Plaintiffs repeatedly impute the actions of Gonzalez to McAllen ISD and consider them the actions of the school district. Thus, through the actions of Gonzalez, Plaintiffs claim that McAllen ISD violated Jose Ramiro Moreno's constitutional rights under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments to be free "from any state-sponsored deprivation of liberty without due process of law, free from the use of cruel and unusual punishment, and enjoyment of equal protection under the law; and [p]hysical and emotional pain, trauma, and suffering."24 Plaintiffs make the same claim for Ms. Moreno, and further allege she suffered from the "[l]oss of financial resources expended in pursuing administrative and legal remedies while Jose Ramiro Moreno was a minor; and [l]oss of financial resources expended on Jose Ramiro Moreno due to [his] physical and emotional pain, trauma and suffering.25
With regards to the policymakers of McAllen ISD and the municipal liability of McAllen ISD required by Section 1983, Plaintiffs state that the school district "officials" were policymakers and they acted with deliberate indifference toward their duties by failing to "fashion properly or to execute faithfully adequate municipal policies to govern the hiring, training, supervision, and discipline of teachers and/or principals."26 Such failures include: failing to train school officials on how to properly investigate complaints regarding teachers, failing to train school employees regarding how to report improper relationships betweenteachers and students, failing to properly supervise and discipline Gonzalez, and responding with deliberate indifference to credible evidence of misconduct.27
Plaintiffs contend that McAllen ISD officials "simply pretended to see nothing, hear nothing" despite the "endemic problem on campus" concerning improper sexual relations between teacher and students.28 Additionally, Plaintiffs assert McAllen ISD "either knew or had constructive knowledge of improper sexual conduct between faculty and students" and that the school district's failure to take action to protect students amounts to authorization or ratification of the wrongful conduct.29
Plaintiffs further advance a claim against McAllen ISD under 42 U.S.C. §1985.30 Plaintiffs simply state that:
Defendant is additionally liable to Plaintiff for the violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985, in that two or more of them conspired for the purpose of [d]epriving Plaintiffs of equal protection of the law; [d]epriving Plaintiffs of due process of the law; and [h]indering the constituted authorities from giving or securing equal protection and due process of law to all persons.31
Specifically regarding the Title IX claim, Plaintiffs assert that McAllen ISD receives federal funding,32 and that McAllen ISD failed "to have policies, procedures, practices, and customs in place to assure Plaintiff Jose Ramiro Moreno was not a victim of harassment andsexual abuse based upon his gender . . . ."33 Plaintiffs further assert that the sexual assaults by Gonzalez violated Jose Ramiro Moreno's rights under Title IX.34
Finally, Plaintiffs allege the personal torts of assault and battery, negligence and negligence per se, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.35 These state tort claims are all premised on the alleged sexual assault.
In the first motion, McAllen ISD moves to dismiss all of Ms. Moreno's claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.36 As a starting point, McAllen ISD contends that Ms. Moreno failed to state "any factual allegations of any conduct of [McAllen ISD] directed to her which would in any form support her claims of constitutional violations as alleged."37 Thus, McAllen ISD argues "all her claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violations of the U.S. Constitution must be dismissed."38 McAllen ISD further argues "there is no 'bystander' liability for the alleged Constitutional violations."39
In the second motion, McAllen ISD moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims of negligence and intentional torts arguing these claims are barred by the Texas Torts Claims Act.40 Specifically, McAllen ISD argues that "[a]ll state law claims are barred by [McAllen ISD's] sovereign immunity and the Texas Tort Claims Act."41 The Court addresses each motion in turn.42
Before a party has answered a complaint, the proper mechanism for removing a claim from the Court's consideration is a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). After the pleadings are closed, the proper mechanism is a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. Here, McAllen ISD seeks dismissal of Ms. Moreno's claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and of both Plaintiff's claims pursuant to the Texas Torts Claims Act. Because McAllen ISD has answered,43 the Court will evaluate these motions under Rule 12(c). Nonetheless, this does not change the substantive analysis since a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is subject to the same standard as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).44
At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court limits its inquiry "to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint."45 To survive a 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."46 This does not require detailed factual allegations, but it does require "more than labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action."47 The Court regards all such well-pleaded facts as true and views them in the light most favorable to plaintiff.48 Considered in that manner, factual allegations must raise a right of relief above the speculative level.49
Pursuant to the Supreme Court precedent set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,50 the Court first disregards from its analysis any conclusory allegations as not...
To continue reading
Request your trial