Patton v. Bennett

• Decision Date: 25 June 1969
• Docket Number: No. 894.,894.
• Citation: 304 F. Supp. 297
• Parties: Lannie Lee PATTON, an infant, by his mother and next friend, Mrs. Laura Mae Patton, Plaintiff, v. W. Freeland BENNETT, Henry Louis Scott, Joe Donaldson, Dr. Charles D. Couser, Robert L. Williams, Boyd Spaulding, Walter McDaniel, Rufus Smith, Tom A. Faris, W. D. Allen, County Board of Education of Franklin County, Tennessee, consisting of Charles Crownover and all of the foregoing defendants except W. Freeland Bennett, Henry Louis Scott and W. D. Allen, Charles Crownover and Fred Langford, Supt. of Franklin County Schools, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

304 F. Supp. 297

Lannie Lee PATTON, an infant, by his mother and next friend, Mrs. Laura Mae Patton, Plaintiff, v.W. Freeland BENNETT, Henry Louis Scott, Joe Donaldson, Dr. Charles D. Couser, Robert L. Williams, Boyd Spaulding, Walter McDaniel, Rufus Smith, Tom A. Faris, W. D. Allen, County Board of Education of Franklin County, Tennessee, consisting of Charles Crownover and all of the foregoing defendants except W. Freeland Bennett, Henry Louis Scott and W. D. Allen, Charles Crownover and Fred Langford, Supt. of Franklin County Schools, Defendants.

No. 894.

United States District Court E. D. Tennessee, Winchester Division.

June 25, 1969.

Avon N. Williams, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiffs.

Lynch, Lynch & Lynch, Winchester, Tenn., for defendantsScott, Donaldson, Couser, Williams, Spaulding, McDaniel, Smith, Faris, Allen, Crownover & Langford.

Joe S. Bean, Winchester, Tenn., Charles H. White, Gullett, Steele, Sanford & White, Nashville, Tenn., for defendant Bennett.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEESE, District Judge.

This is an action by the plaintiff, a citizen of the United States and a student in the public school system of Franklin County, Tennessee, who claims he was subjected to the deprivation of his immunity against cruel and unusual punishment (as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution), to the deprivation of his right to be secure in his person (under the Fourth Amendment thereof), and to the deprivation of his right to the equal protection of the laws (under the Fourteenth Amendment thereof), by the defendantW. Freeland Bennett, a teacher in that system, while the latter was acting under color of the public education statutes, regulations, custom and usage of the state of Tennessee.42 U.S.C. § 1983.The plaintiff claims Mr. Bennett jerked a chair from under him and caused him to fall to the floor of the study hall of one of such schools for a minor infraction, proximately causing him physical injuries and embarrassment and humiliation in the presence of his fellow-students.

The defendantCounty Board of Education is claimed to be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for such deprivations on the part of Mr. Bennett.The individual defendants are members of that board or administrative officials thereof, who, the plaintiff claims, were proximately negligent in employing Mr. Bennett and assigning him duties which were likely to result in his confronting a situation such as claimed here.

The plaintiff Mr. Patton claims further that the individual defendants conspired to prevent or hinder the constituted authorities of the state of Tennessee, and especially of Franklin County, from giving and securing to him and others similarly situated in the racial class of which the plaintiff is a member, equal protection of the laws.42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).A mandatory injunction is sought to remove Mr. Bennett from any employment in which he might be in a position to further so prevent and hinder these authorities in so doing.

All the defendants move for a dismissal of the complaint, claiming that it fails to state a claim against any of them on which relief can be granted, Rule 12(b)(6),Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.They claim further that they are immune from prosecution of any tortious conduct on the part of Mr. Bennett by Tennessee law.

The motion as to the defendantCounty Board of Education has merit and hereby is granted.That board is not a "person" within the meaning of the civil rights statutes.Deane Hill Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, C.A. 6th(1967), 379 F.2d 321, 324 2, citing Monroe v. Pape(1961), 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492.The motion is good also as to the defendants Messrs. Crownover and Langford, respectively, neither of whom is claimed to have been a member of the education board or its superintendent on November 1, 1967, when the acts complained of occurred.As to the aforenamed defendants, therefore, the motion hereby is granted.

Although in Tennessee county boards of education are entities of the state, which exercise governmental functions in the operation of its public schools and ordinarily are not liable in private actions for acts done while engaged in the performance of those duties, unless such liability is expressly fixed by statute, Reed v. Rhea County(1949), 189 Tenn. 247, 225 S.W.2d 49, 50 2-5, 6, their members and teachers cannot be accorded complete immunity, but only a qualified privilege.Thus, the extent of the defendants' insulation from liability under the Civil Rights Act cannot properly be determined by reference to the local rule of Tennessee."* * * Surely each state cannot be left to decide for itself which of its officials are completely immune from liability for depriving a citizen of rights granted by the Federal Constitution.The question must be decided as a matter of general law. * * *"Nelson v. Knox, C.A. 6th(1958), 256 F.2d 312, 314 1.

These defendants have a qualified privilege, giving them a defense against civil liability for harms caused by acts done by them in good faith in the performance of their official duties as they understood them, but they are liable in damages for any harm which they inflicted intentionally upon the plaintiff.Cf.Cobb v. City of Malden, C.A. 1st(1953), 202 F.2d 701, cited inDunn v. Gazzola, C.A. 1st(1954), 216 F.2d 709, 711 5, 6.

It is stipulated that the (now remaining)defendants were acting under color of state law.A fair reading of the claims of the plaintiff are to the effect that the individual defendants acted intentionally to deprive him of his lawful rights.The facts alleged...