Ritchie v. Coldwater Cmty. Sch.

• Decision Date: 22 May 2013
• Docket Number: Case Nos. 1:11–CV–530,1:11–CV–616.
• Citation: 947 F.Supp.2d 791
• Parties: Randal RITCHIE, Plaintiff, v. COLDWATER COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, Defendants. Randal Ritchie, Plaintiff, v. The City of Coldwater, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

947 F.Supp.2d 791

Randal RITCHIE, Plaintiff,

v.COLDWATER COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, Defendants.

Randal Ritchie, Plaintiff,

v.The City of Coldwater, Defendants.

Case Nos. 1:11–CV–530, 1:11–CV–616.

United States District Court,

W.D. Michigan,

Southern Division.

May 22, 2013.

Richard H. Winslow, Otsego, MI, Terry E. Heiss, Terry E. Heiss, PC, Ada, MI, for Plaintiff.

Duncan A. McMillan, Mark T. Ostrowski, William Vogelzang, Jr., Kluczynski, Girtz & Vogelzang, Grand Rapids, MI, Michael S. Bogren, Plunkett Cooney, Kalamazoo, MI, for Defendants.

OPINION

GORDON J. QUIST, District Judge.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff, Randal Ritchie, has sued various defendants in these consolidated cases based primarily on four 2010 incidents, three of which occurred during Coldwater Community Schools board meetings and the fourth of which occurred on school property. In his initial Complaint in case number 1:11–CV–530, Ritchie sued Coldwater Community Schools (School District), the Coldwater Community School Board (School Board), current and former School Board members, the current School District Superintendent, and the former School District Superintendent, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of Ritchie's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and a state law claim for violation of the Michigan Open Meetings Act (OMA), M.C.L. § 15.261 et seq. Thereafter, Ritchie amended his Complaint twice, omitting certain claims and adding others. In addition, the parties stipulated to dismiss most of the School Board members. On July 11, 2012, 2012 WL 2862037, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(c).

Following the Court's rulings and additional stipulated dismissals, the following claims and Defendants remain in case number 1:11–CV–530: (1) Count I, alleging that School Board President Robin Iveson, former Superintendent David Disler, and the School Board violated Ritchie's First Amendment rights by cutting him off during the public comment portion of the May 24, 2010 School Board meeting; (2) Count II, alleging that Disler and the School Board interfered with Ritchie's First Amendment right to attend the July 12, 2010 School Board meeting by approving a police officer's June 11, 2010 verbal order banning Ritchie from the Administrative Services Center; ¹ (3) Counts III and IV against current Superintendent Tina Kerr and the School Board, alleging that they violated Ritchie's First Amendment rights by causing police officers to forcibly remove him from School Board meetings on September 27, 2010, and October 25, 2010; and (4) Counts VI and IX against the School Board and Iveson, respectively, alleging OMA violations.

In case number 1:11–CV–616, Ritchie initially sued the City of Coldwater and Corporal Mark Miller. Ritchie subsequently amended his Complaint to add Corporal Patricia Johnson, Officer Nicholas Thornton, and Officer Eastmead as Defendants. In Count I of his Amended Complaint, Ritchie alleges that Corporal Miller—the police officer who issued the June 11, 2010 verbal order—violated Ritchie's fundamental right to travel and his First Amendment rights. In Count II, Ritchie alleges that the City violated his First Amendment rights by adopting the trespassing ordinance that the officers applied in removing and arresting Ritchie, and by ratifying Corporal Miller's verbal order. In Count III, Ritchie alleges that the City violated his Fourth Amendment rights as a result of the arrests at the September 27 and October 25 School Board meetings. In Counts IV and V, Ritchie alleges that Officers Thornton and Eastmead and Corporal Johnson violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights by removing him from the School Board meetings and arresting him. In Count VII, Ritchie alleges state law claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution against Officers Thornton and Eastmead and Corporal Johnson. Finally, in Count VIII, Ritchie requests a declaratory judgment that Ordinance 660.03 is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

Defendants in both cases have filed Motions for Summary Judgment requesting dismissal of all of Ritchie's claims. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant both motions in part and deny them in part. ²

II. Facts

A. Ritchie Complains to the Coldwater School District

Ritchie resides in Branch County, Michigan, and within the Coldwater Community Schools school district. Ritchie's children attended schools within the School District until the fall of 2010.

On April 22, 2010, Ritchie's daughter, who was in the Fourth grade at Jefferson Elementary School, told Ritchie that her teacher, Mrs. Renner, had pulled or tugged on her hair, causing her pain, as the class was preparing to take a math test. (Ritchie Dep. at 54–55, Coldwater Defs.' Br. Supp. Mot. Ex. A.) The following day, Ritchie took his daughter to the Coldwater Police Department (CPD) to report the hair-pulling incident as an assault and battery. ( Id. at 67; Incident/Investigation Report, Pl.'s 530 Resp. Br. Ex. 6.) ³ Ritchie spoke with Sgt. VandenHout, who interviewed Ritchie's daughter. Sgt. VandenHout thereafter interviewed Mrs. Renner and the school principal, Doug Bower. At Sgt. VandenHout's request, Mr. Bower interviewed three students in Mrs. Renner's class who sat near Ritchie's daughter, but none of them saw Mrs. Renner do anything to Ritchie's daughter. ( Id. at 4–5.) Sgt. VandenHout concluded that there was no evidence to support the complaint and advised Ritchie to pursue the matter with the school. ( Id. at 5; Ritchie Dep. at 69.) Based on Sgt. VandenHout's report, the School District declined to take any action against Mrs. Renner.

Dissatisfied with Sgt. VandenHout's investigation, Ritchie pursued his complaint through other avenues outside the CPD, including the Michigan State Police, the Branch County Sheriff's Department, and Child Protective Services, but all declined to investigate. ( Id. at 82, 84.) Ritchie also pursued the matter with the Branch County Prosecutor's office, which declined to pursue charges but advised Ritchie to take his concerns to the School Board or other agencies. (Ritchie Aff. ¶ 21, Pl.'s 530 Resp. Br. Ex. 9.)

In the weeks following the incident, Ritchie made numerous visits to Mr. Bower at Jefferson Elementary and to Interim School District Superintendent David Disler at the Administration Services Center (ASC), demanding that they suspend Mrs. Renner and/or remove her from the classroom.⁴ (Bower Aff. ¶¶ 7, 13, 15, 18, School Dist. Defs.' Br. Supp. Ex. C.; Disler Aff. ¶¶ 4, School Dist. Defs.' Br. Supp. Ex. G.) Each time, Ritchie followed his standard practice of recording the conversation with a concealed electronic recording device without the other party's knowledge. (Ritchie Dep. at 84–85.) In a meeting with Mr. Bower on April 23, 2010, Ritchie demanded that his daughter be pulled from Mrs. Renner's class and placed with another teacher. Although Mr. Bower accommodated Ritchie's request, a day or two later Ritchie changed his mind and demanded that his daughter be placed back in Mrs. Renner's classroom and that Ritchie be allowed to sit in and observe Mrs. Renner. ( Id. at 96.) Mr. Bower declined Ritchie's request to sit in Mrs. Renner's class, but apparently agreed to return Ritchie's daughter to Mrs. Renner's classroom. (Bower Aff. ¶ 8.) The next day, however, Ritchie and his wife, Nisha, met with Mr. Bower and requested that their daughter be placed back in the other teacher's class. (Ritchie Dep. at 99.)

On April 26, Ritchie accompanied his daughter on a school field trip. During the lunch break, a bus driver complained to Ritchie that Mrs. Renner had denied lunch to a student who forgot to bring a lunch from home. (Ritchie Aff. ¶ 5.) Ritchie found the student, who was then eating a lunch she had received from someone else, and asked the student and her paraprofessional questions about how Mrs. Renner denied the student a lunch. ( Id. ¶ 9.) Later that day, Ritchie reported the lunch incident to the Michigan State Police, who, in turn, advised Mr. Bower that they did not intend to pursue Ritchie's complaint against Mrs. Renner. (Bower Aff. ¶ 14; Ritchie Aff. ¶ 9.) In a meeting the following day, Mr. Bower reminded Ritchie that he should avoid Mrs. Renner. (Bower Aff. ¶ 13.) On May 7, 2010, Disler notified Richie that he was to limit his contact with school employees to Pete Rogovich—Legg Middle School Assistant Principal—Mr. Bower, and Disler. (Letter from Disler to Ritchie of 5/7/10, Pl.'s 530 Resp. Br. Ex. 15.)

In early May, Ritchie sought out other parents who had concerns about Mrs. Renner. During a conversation with Scott Etoll on May 1, 2010, Mr. Etoll told Ritchie about how Etoll had once used force against a teacher who was beating his brother. (Ritchie Dep. at 114–15.) In response, Ritchie commented that there was a time in this country when a person could shoot someone who had hurt his child and the community would back him. ( Id. at 113.) A few days later, the Etolls reported to Mr. Bower that Ritchie had been to their home on two occasions trying to enlist the Etolls to make claims against Mrs. Renner, that Ritchie had told them that he owned guns and knew how to use them, that Ritchie would not leave until they ordered him to do so, and that Ritchie appeared aggravated or aggressive. (Bower Aff. ¶ 20.) Mr. Etoll also told Mr. Bower about Ritchie's statement about a person shooting someone who harmed his child, although Mr. Etoll apparently said that Ritchie had referred to shooting a teacher. ( Id.) Mr. Bower conveyed this information to Disler, who in turn contacted the police and requested that they conduct a risk/threat assessment of Ritchie. (Ritchie Aff. ¶ 15.) Subsequently, CPD Deputy Director Mark Bartell interviewed Ritchie. (Ritchie Aff. ¶ 17.) Deputy Director Bartell found Ritchie's answers “logical.” (...