R.M.B. v. Bedford Cnty. (Virginia) Sch. Bd.

• Decision Date: 11 March 2016
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 6:15-cv-00004
• Citation: 169 F.Supp.3d 647
• Parties: R.M.B., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Bedford County (Virginia) School Board, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

169 F.Supp.3d 647

R.M.B., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Bedford County (Virginia) School Board, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 6:15-cv-00004

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Lynchburg Division.

Signed March 11, 2016

Melvin E. Williams, Micah Douglas Wright, Mel Williams PLC, Roanoke, VA, for Plaintiffs.

Jim H. Guynn, Jr., Bret Collin Marfut, Guynn & Waddell, PC, Salem, VA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NORMAN K. MOON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court upon Defendants' motion for summary judgment (docket no. 53) and Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment (docket no. 76).

Plaintiffs in this suit are R.M.B., an 11-year-old boy who was enrolled as a student at Bedford Middle School (“BMS”) for the 2014–15 school year; his father, Robert Bays, a retired schoolteacher; and his mother, Linda Bays, a schoolteacher employed by the Bedford County School Board (“BCSB”). Defendants are Brian Wilson, an assistant principal at BMS; Dr. Frederick M. Duis Jr., the Chief Operations Officer for Bedford County Public Schools (“BCPS”); and M. M. Calohan, a law enforcement officer employed as a deputy of the Bedford County Sheriff, and who was assigned to BMS as a school resource officer.

Plaintiffs' suit contains three claims: a Virginia state law claim of malicious prosecution; a claim of deprivation of due process; and a claim of deprivation of substantive due process. For the following reasons, I will grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and deny Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is warranted if the Court concludes that no genuine issue of material fact exists for trial and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, based on the totality of the evidence, including pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits. Whiteman v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. , 729 F.3d 381, 385 (4th Cir.2013) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ). A genuine issue of material fact exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). To demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists, a party may not rest upon his own mere allegations or denials. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Rather, the party must “proffer[ ] sufficient proof, in the form of admissible evidence, that could carry the burden of proof of his claim at trial.” Mitchell v. Data Gen. Corp. , 12 F.3d 1310, 1316 (4th Cir.1993). To this end, a district court has an “affirmative obligation ... to prevent ‘factually unsupported claims [or] defenses' from proceeding to trial.” Felty v. Graves – Humphreys Co. , 818 F.2d 1126, 1128 (4th Cir.1987) (quoting Celotex , 477 U.S. at 323–24, 106 S.Ct. 2548 ).

II. UNDISPUTED FACTS

A. INITIAL REPORTS TO CALOHAN

Calohan received a report on September 19, 2014, from Christy Martin, a parent of a student at BMS. Martin reported that R.M.B. “was telling people at school he was selling brownies and cookies with marijuana [baked inside].” Docket No. 54, Ex. 1, at 6 (hereinafter “Calohan Dec.”); see also Docket No. 77, Ex. 4, at 2:10–15 (“[M]y daughter had heard ... about a child bringing marijuana cookies in and offering it to students.”) (hereinafter “Martin Dep.”).

Calohan received a similar report the following Monday morning, September 22, 2014. A female sixth grade student, identified as M.S., went to Calohan's school office and told her that R.M.B. “brought this leaf to school that he said was marijuana.” Docket No. 77, Ex. 6, at 20:10–15 (hereinafter “M.S. Dep.”). M.S. also reported that R.M.B. had a lighter, rolled cigarette paper into a cigarette and lit the end of it, and that he and a high school student were selling marijuana on his bus. Calohan Dec. 6.

B. WILSON'S INVESTIGATION

Calohan relayed these reports to Wilson later that morning, and he retrieved R.M.B. from class. Docket No. 54, Ex. 2, at 4 (hereinafter “Wilson Dec.”); Docket No. 77, Ex. 1, at 9:11–17 (hereinafter “R.M.B. Dep.”); Docket No. 77, Ex. 5, at 4:22–5:1 (hereinafter “Wilson Dep.”). While walking to his office, Wilson asked R.M.B. if he had anything in his cinch sack that he should not have, to which R.M.B. responded “No.” R.M.B. Dep. 10:5–6; Wilson Dep. 5:2–6.

Once in his office, Wilson decided to search R.M.B.'s cinch sack. Officer Calohan was responding to a call at the elementary school at the time, and so Wilson called the school nurse into his office to witness the search. Wilson Dec. 4; Wilson Dep. 5:1–2. Wilson and R.M.B. emptied R.M.B.'s cinch sack, and Wilson discovered in the front pocket of the sack what appeared to be a crumpled marijuana leaf and a lighter. R.M.B. Dep. 10:22–11:4; Wilson Dep. 5:6–10; see also Docket No. 54, Ex. 3, at 2–4 (hereinafter “Photo Ex.”).

Wilson asked R.M.B. how he came to possess the items, and R.M.B. told him that a high school student, identified as J.T., gave him the leaf and the lighter. R.M.B. Dep. 12:3–4; Wilson Dec. 4. R.M.B. stated that he did not purchase the leaf from J.T., but instead that it was given to him to keep. Wilson Dec. 4.

C. CALOHAN'S INVESTIGATION AND R.M.B.'S CRIMINAL CHARGE

Wilson called Calohan into his office when she returned to school, and she examined some of R.M.B.'s possessions. She observed that R.M.B. had a picture of a cannabis plant on the welcome screen of his phone, which was overlaid with the text “F*** YOU.” Calohan Dec. 7; Photo Ex. 4.

She also inspected the leaf. She “observed [the leaf] visually, noticed that it was five leaves coming off an individual stem, each leaf being serrated on the edge which was consistent with that of marijuana.” Calohan Dep. 15:11–14. She also “observed the odor of the leaf, which [she] knew through [her] training to be the odor of marijuana, consistent with that of marijuana.” Id. at 15:14–16. Based on her training and experience, she knew based on the size, shape, color, and smell of the leaf that it was consistent with marijuana. Calohan Dec. 6.

Calohan placed a portion of the leaf in a Duquenois-Levine Reagent field test kit (hereinafter “field test”). Calohan Dep. 3:21. Such field tests are used to detect the presence of marijuana, hashish, THC, and hash oil. Calohan Dec. 6. The field test yielded a negative result, meaning that the leaf did not indicate the presence of any of the above-named substances. Calohan Dep. 15:24–16:1. Calohan conducted a second field test, which also yielded a negative result. Id. at 17:8–11. Calohan conducted a third field test thirty minutes later, which also yielded a negative result. Id. at 17:17–18:1.

“Concerned with the results of the test kit,” Calohan sought guidance from fellow officer Chris Cook, another school resource officer. Cook did not, however, have any helpful advice. Calohan Dep. 28:5–16.

Calohan subsequently contacted Gary Harper, an intake officer at the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. Calohan told Harper “everything,” including that she identified the leaf as marijuana both visually and olfactorily, but that the three field tests yielded negative results. Id. at 24:17–20. She asked for “further guidance on regarding what to do in terms of seeking a petition.” Id. at 24:20–22.

Harper requested that Calohan come to his office. When she arrived, Harper looked over all of the evidence that she provided, and he advised Calohan that he believed the information sufficient to issue a petition. Id. at 24:24–25:4; Calohan Dec. 2. Harper thereafter issued an intake petition accusing R.M.B. of possessing marijuana. Calohan Dep. 24:24–25:4.

The leaf was not sent to state forensics for further testing, however, and so the petition was nolle prosequied on November 24, 2014. Docket No. 77, Ex. 11.

D. R.M.B.'S SUSPENSION AND ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

Wilson contacted R.M.B.'s parents while Calohan was concluding her investigation. Wilson told them he received reports indicating R.M.B. possessed marijuana, and that he found a lighter and a leaf that appeared to be marijuana in R.M.B.'s cinch sack. Wilson Dec. 4. Wilson suspended R.M.B. for ten days and recommended that he be expelled pursuant to Bedford County's “Zero Tolerance” policy. Id. at 4; Wilson Dep. 6:3–10.

Because Wilson recommended expulsion, R.M.B. had the right to participate in an administrative hearing before an administrative hearing officer. Duis, who was appointed as an administrative hearing officer by the superintendent of BCPS, oversaw R.M.B.'s hearing. Docket No. 54, at 1 (hereinafter “Hr'g Tr.”). R.M.B. attended the hearing with his attorney, Emily Sitzler, and both of his parents. Id. Wilson was also present at the hearing.

Wilson recounted the evidence against R.M.B. at the hearing. R.M.B.'s parents and his attorney were allowed to ask questions of Wilson and to make arguments. For example, they argued the reports indicating R.M.B. had marijuana were not credible and not specific to R.M.B. Hr'g Tr. 14–15.

Moreover, R.M.B. was allowed to present his own narrative of events. R.M.B. claimed that a student sitting next to him on the bus must have placed the lighter and the leaf in his cinch pack without his knowledge. Id. at 11–12. This was contrary to R.M.B.'s original story, and he was allowed to explain this inconsistency, stating that he lied to Wilson because he did not think Wilson would believe the truth. Id. at 12–13.

After hearing the evidence and the arguments, Duis found on the record that R.M.B. knowingly possessed either marijuana or a marijuana lookalike. Id. at 20. Duis nevertheless reduced R.M.B.'s punishment from expulsion to suspension for 364 days, with the opportunity to attend an alternative school while suspended and to return to BMS at the end of the first semester if R.M.B. maintained good grades, had no disciplinary issues, and completed the County's Drug Intervention Program. Id. at 24.

III. DISCUSSION

A. MALICIOU...