R.S. ex rel. S.S. v. Minnewaska Area Sch. Dist. No. 2149

• Decision Date: 06 September 2012
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 12–588 (MJD/LIB).
• Citation: 894 F.Supp.2d 1128
• Parties: R.S., a minor, by and through her mother, S.S., individually and on behalf of her daughter, Plaintiffs, v. MINNEWASKA AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2149; Gregory Ohl, Minnewaska School District Superintendent, in his individual and official capacities; Mary Walsh, Minnewaska Middle School Counselor, in her individual and official capacities; Jane Doe, in her individual and official capacities; County of Pope; Paul Gerde, Pope County Board Chair, in his official capacity; Timothy P. Riley, Pope County Sheriff, in his individual and official capacities; Gilbert Mitchell, Pope County Deputy Sheriff, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

894 F.Supp.2d 1128

R.S., a minor, by and through her mother, S.S., individually and on behalf of her daughter, Plaintiffs,

v.MINNEWASKA AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2149; Gregory Ohl, Minnewaska School District Superintendent, in his individual and official capacities; Mary Walsh, Minnewaska Middle School Counselor, in her individual and official capacities; Jane Doe, in her individual and official capacities; County of Pope; Paul Gerde, Pope County Board Chair, in his official capacity; Timothy P. Riley, Pope County Sheriff, in his individual and official capacities; Gilbert Mitchell, Pope County Deputy Sheriff, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants.

Civ. No. 12–588 (MJD/LIB).

United States District Court,

D. Minnesota.

Sept. 6, 2012.

Wallace G. Hilke, Bryan R. Freeman, Lindquist & Vennum PLLP, Teresa Nelson, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, for Plaintiffs.

Timothy J. O'Connor, Teresa E. Knoedler, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, PA, for Defendants Minnewaska Area School District No. 2149, Gregory Ohl, Mary Walsh, and Jane Doe.

Memorandum of Law & Order

MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief Judge.

I. Introduction

This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss [Docket No. 13] and a request to file a supplemental brief [Docket No. 22] by Defendants Minnewaska Area School District No. 2149, Gregory Ohl, Mary Walsh, and Jane Doe (“school defendants”). The Court heard oral argument on July 13, 2012.

II. Summary of Case

This case comes before the Court at an early stage, when the Court has heard only one side of the story—that told in Plaintiffs' complaint. At this stage, the Court must consider those facts, recited below, to be true. As this case proceeds, facts may be developed which change the Court's conclusions.

Plaintiffs' complaint alleges a school official punished R.S.—a twelve year old studentat the Minnewaska Area Middle School—for two postings on her Facebook wall. One posting expressed her dislike of an adult school employee and another expressed salty curiosity about who had “told on her.” Plaintiffs argue that the punishment of her out-of-school wall postings violated her First Amendment right to free speech. Plaintiffs further allege that school officials forced R.S. to involuntarily surrender her Facebook and email passwords upon their learning that R.S. and one of her classmates had an out-of-school sex-related conversation. They argue that the officials' subsequent search of R.S.'s private Facebook account constituted an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiffs also assert a number of other claims under federal and state law based on the same alleged conduct.

The defendants argue the actions alleged by Plaintiffs did not violate the Constitution. They further contend that they are entitled to immunity because, even if a constitutional violation did occur, R.S.'s constitutional rights were not “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.

The Court here concludes only that, if true, the facts set out in Plaintiffs' complaint amount to violations of R.S.'s constitutional rights and that those rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct. The Court also concludes that certain claims advanced by the Plaintiffs—civil conspiracy to deprive R.S. of her civil rights and intentional infliction of emotional distress—have not been sufficiently pled. The Court therefore dismisses those claims. At this early stage, the Court passes no judgment on whether the defendants committed the acts alleged by Plaintiffs or whether the defendants will ultimately be found liable for such acts. The school defendants will be free to raise their immunity claims and other defenses after discovery in this case.

III. Background

At this stage, the Court considers the following facts—set out in Plaintiffs' complaint—as true:

A. Punishment of R.S. for Her Facebook Wall Posts

Plaintiff R.S. is the daughter of Plaintiff S.S. At the time of the facts alleged in the complaint, R.S. was a twelve year old, sixth grade student at Minnewaska Area Middle School in the Minneswaska Area School District in Glenwood, Minnesota (“District”). (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 17.) Sometime in early 2011, R.S. posted a message to the “wall” of her account on the internet website “www. facebook. com” (“Facebook”) about a particular adult hall monitor at school (“Kathy”). ( Id. ¶ 19.) She wrote something to the effect of: “[I hate] a Kathy person at school because [Kathy] was mean to me.” ( Id.) R.S.'s posting on her Facebook wall was intended to be accessible by her Facebook “friends,” but not by members of the general public. ( Id.) Facebook's website is inaccessible from school computers, and R.S. posted the message from home, outside of school hours. ( Id. ¶ 20.)

Apparently, one of R.S.'s Facebook “friends”—one of the people authorized by R.S. to view her wall postings—viewed and recorded the message about Kathy, as that message made its way to school Principal Pat Falk. ( Id. ¶ 21.) Principal Falk called R.S. to his office and told R.S. that he considered the message about Kathy to be impermissible bullying. ( Id. ¶ 22–23.) Principal Falk required R.S. to apologize to the hall monitor and gave her a detention, for behavior described in disciplinary records as having been “rude/discourteous” and “other.” ( Id. at 23.)

R.S. was disciplined once more when she published a second message on her Facebook wall which stated: “I want to know who the f% $# [sic] told on me.” ( Id. ¶ 25.) School disciplinary records indicate that R.S. was punished for “insubordination” and “dangerous, harmful, and nuisance substances and articles.” ( Id.) In response to this message, R.S. was given a one-day in school suspension and was also prohibited from attending a class ski trip. ( Id.)

B. Search of R.S.'s Private Internet Accounts

R.S. further alleges that on or around March 10, 2011, school officials received information from the guardian of a male student who complained that the boy was communicating with R.S. about sexual topics via the internet. ( Id. ¶ 27.) A school official called S.S. and told S.S. that the boy had admitted that he initiated the online conversation about sex. ( Id. 28.) On the same day, a school counselor—Defendant Mary Walsh—called R.S. out of class to ask her about the alleged conversations. R.S. told Counselor Walsh that she had been talking about “naughty things” with her classmate via the internet, off school grounds, and outside school hours. ( Id. ¶ 29.)

Counselor Walsh allowed R.S. to return to class, but R.S. was called out of class a second time on the same day. ( Id. ¶ 30.) In the second instance, R.S. was taken to a room in the administrative office, which apparently was the office of Defendant Deputy Sheriff Gilbert Mitchell, who was assigned to the school. In the room were Counselor Walsh, Deputy Mitchell, and an employee unknown to R.S. named in the complaint as Jane Doe. ( Id.) Deputy Mitchell wore his police uniform and a taser. ( Id.) The three officials asked R.S. about her conversations with her male classmate, and she again stated that she had been talking with him about naughty things. ( Id.)

R.S. alleges that the school officials then demanded that she provide them with her email and Facebook usernames and passwords. ( Id. ¶ 32.) When R.S. hesitated and stated that she did not remember her passwords, the officials called her a liar and threatened her with detention if she did not give them her passwords. ( Id. ¶ 33.) Feeling threatened and without a choice, R.S. eventually relented and gave the school officials the information that they had requested. ( Id.) The school officials logged into R.S.'s Facebook account, viewing her public postings along with her private messages. ( Id. ¶ 35.) While R.S. is certain the officials searched her Facebook account, she is not sure if they also searched her private email account because she could not see the computer screen. ( Id.) The officials spent approximately fifteen minutes searching through R.S.'s communications, both public and private, apparently in an effort to find R.S.'s “naughty” discussion with her classmate. ( Id. ¶ 38.)

The officials did not limit their search to R.S.'s public messages. They expressed surprise that R.S. had used profanity in some of her Facebook communications. ( Id. ¶ 39.) They also allegedly viewed and commented on the fact that R.S. had taken “one or more online Facebook ‘fun and funny’ sex quizzes and had posted the result of some of those quizzes.” ( Id.) All three of the officials—Counselor Walsh, Deputy Mitchell, and the unknown official—examined R.S.'s private correspondence. ( Id. ¶ 40.) At no point did they ask R.S. for permission to search through her private correspondence. R.S. alleges that she was “intimidated, frightened, humiliated, and sobbing while she was detained.” ( Id. ¶ 42.)

R.S. was not formally disciplined. After the search, Counselor Walsh called S.S. and left her a voicemail, relaying to her the events of the day, including the search of R.S.'s Facebook account. ( Id. ¶ 45.) When she returned home from school, R.S. cried and felt “depressed, angry, scared, and embarrassed.” ( Id. ¶ 46.) She feared that school officials would again access her Facebook account or punish her. ( Id.) She did not attend school for two days following the incident and alleges that she fell behind in her school work. ( Id. ¶ 47.) Upon her return to school, R.S. felt “less safe” and had “lost her sense of security.” ( Id. ¶ 48.) R.S. alleges that officials at the school have required other students to similarly disclose their private information to allow school officials to search through their private communications under circumstances analogous to those experienced by R.S. ( Id. ¶ 49.)

Plaintiffs' complaint sets out eight counts: Violation of First Amendment (Count I); Violation of Fourth Amendment (Count II); Conspiracy to Deprive Rights and Failure to Prevent Violation of...