Robertson v. Anderson Mill Elementary Sch.

• Decision Date: 02 March 2021
• Docket Number: No. 19-2157,19-2157
• Citation: 989 F.3d 282
• Parties: Hannah ROBERTSON, Individually and on Behalf of her Minor Child, R.R.S., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANDERSON MILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; Spartanburg County School District #6 ; Elizabeth Foster, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Principal, Defendants - Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

989 F.3d 282

Hannah ROBERTSON, Individually and on Behalf of her Minor Child, R.R.S., Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.ANDERSON MILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; Spartanburg County School District #6 ; Elizabeth Foster, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Principal, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 19-2157

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: January 29, 2021

Decided: March 2, 2021

Eric Chalmers Poston, CHALMERS POSTON LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jasmine Rogers Drain, Thomas Kennedy Barlow, HALLIGAN MAHONEY & WILLIAMS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Thacker wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Niemeyer joined.

THACKER, Circuit Judge:

During the 2018–19 school year, the fourth grade class at Anderson Mill Elementary School in Spartanburg County, South Carolina was given an assignment that required each student to write an "essay to society" on any topic. The essays were to be compiled into a booklet, and copies of that booklet were to be placed in the fourth grade classroom so that students could read the essays throughout the remainder of the school year. Additionally, copies of the essay booklet were to be sent home with the students for their families to read.

R.R.S.,¹ an Anderson Mill Elementary School fourth grade student, wrote the essay to society on the topic of LGBTQ² equality. Because Elizabeth Foster, the school's principal, determined that the subject matter of R.R.S.’s essay was not age-appropriate, she instructed R.R.S.’s teacher to inform R.R.S. that the school was not going to include the essay in the fourth grade class's essay booklet. R.R.S.’s mother, Hannah Robertson ("Appellant"), filed suit on behalf of herself and R.R.S., alleging that Principal Foster infringed upon R.R.S.’s First Amendment right to free speech.

The district court held that Principal Foster's conduct was a proper exercise of the authority possessed by school officials to regulate school-sponsored student speech and dismissed Appellant's complaint. For the reasons detailed below, we agree, and affirm the judgment of the district court.

I.

A.

R.R.S. was ten years old when the "essay to society" was assigned in the winter of 2019. According to the amended complaint, which is the operative complaint in this case, R.R.S.’s maternal grandfather is a member of the LGBTQ community. Furthermore, the amended complaint describes R.R.S. as a "proud advocate[ ] of LGBTQ rights." J.A. 16.³ For these reasons, R.R.S. decided to write about LGBTQ equality. Her essay, reprinted here verbatim, stated the following:

To society,

I don't know if you know this but peoples view on Tran's genders is an issue. People think that men should not drees like a women, and saying mean things. They think that they are choosing the wrong thing in life. In the world people can choose who they want to be not being told that THEIR diction is wrong. I hope people understand that people can hurt themselves from others hurting their feelings. People need to think before they speak because one word can hurt someone's feelings. We need to fix this because this is getting out of hand!

Id. at 16–17.

Principal Foster reviewed the essays submitted by the fourth grade class before they were compiled into an essay booklet. Upon reviewing R.R.S.’s LGBTQ-themed essay, Principal Foster instructed R.R.S.’s fourth grade teacher to inform R.R.S. that the essay was not going to be included in the class's essay booklet because, in Principal Foster's view, the essay's topic "was not [ ] appropriate." J.A. 17. R.R.S. then submitted a revised essay, which addressed bullying instead of LGBTQ issues. In the revised essay, R.R.S. wrote, again verbatim:

To society,

I don't know if you know this but peoples view on bullying is an issue. People think that saying mean things is ok and saying mean things. They think that they are choosing the wrong thing in life. In the world people can choose who they want to be not being told that THEIR diction is wrong. I hope people understand that people can hurt themselves from others hurting their feelings. People need to think before they speak because one word can hurt someone's feelings. We need to fix this because this is getting out of hand!

Id. at 17–18.

Appellant alleges that shortly before the filing of the original complaint on March 6, 2019, Principal Foster "defended her decision" to not include R.R.S.’s LGBTQ-themed essay in the fourth grade class's essay booklet through "a series of increasingly abusive, harassing, emotionally distressful and/or clearly unwarranted communications with" Appellant. J.A. 18. Appellant further alleges that during these communications, Principal Foster provided the following justifications for her decision: "the original paper would make other parents upset"; the original paper "would create a [sic] undesirable situation at the school"; the original paper "was not acceptable"; "it was not age-appropriate to discuss transgenders, lesbians, and drag queens outside of the home"; and "due to the type of school this is, the people that work here and the students and families of the students that go here, the topic would be disagreeable." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

However, in a letter dated March 15, 2019, Principal Foster informed Appellant that she had reversed course and decided that "both of [ ] R.R.S.’s papers would be published" in the fourth grade class's essay booklet. J.A. 19. But by this point, Appellant, citing concerns about R.R.S.’s privacy, no longer wanted the original essay to be included in the essay booklet. Eventually, both of R.R.S.’s essays were removed from the essay booklet at the request of Appellant.

B.

On March 20, 2019, Appellant filed the amended complaint⁴ at issue against Anderson Mill Elementary School, Spartanburg County School District #6 (the "School District"), and Elizabeth Foster, individually and in her official capacity as principal⁵ (collectively, "Appellees"). The amended complaint contains a federal constitutional claim, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as claims brought under South Carolina law. Specifically, the constitutional claim alleges that Principal Foster violated R.R.S.’s First Amendment right to free speech "by forcing [ ] R.R.S. to change the topic of [the] paper." J.A. 20. As for the state law claims, the amended complaint alleges causes of action for both intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Appellant seeks relief in the form of, inter alia, "actual damages, punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief[,] and nominal damages." Id. at 22.

On April 3, 2019, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss most, but not all, of the amended complaint. Appellees moved the district court to dismiss all claims against Anderson Mill Elementary School, the constitutional claim brought against Principal Foster in her individual capacity, Appellant's claim for injunctive relief, and the state law claims with respect to all named defendants.

On April 24, 2019, Appellant filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. According to Appellant, the proposed second amended complaint would not name any new defendants or alter the causes of actions alleged in the first amended complaint, but rather would "account[ ] for significant, relevant factual developments that ha[d] occurred since the Amended Complaint was filed" and would be relevant to Appellant's state law claims. J.A. 75.

In an order issued on October 15, 2019, the district court dismissed Appellant's amended complaint in its entirety and denied as moot Appellant's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. First, the district court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss all claims against Anderson Mill Elementary School because the school is not a legal entity separate and distinct from the School District. Second, the district court granted, on qualified immunity grounds, Appellees’ motion to dismiss the constitutional claim brought against Principal Foster in her individual capacity. Third, the district court sua sponte dismissed the constitutional claim brought against the School District because Appellant failed to "allege[ ] any constitutional violation based on an official policy or custom." J.A. 120. Fourth, the district court denied Appellant's requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, primarily because it found that Principal Foster did not violate R.R.S.’s constitutional rights. Fifth, having already dismissed Appellant's federal claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Appellant's state law claims, and dismissed those claims without prejudice. Sixth, the district court denied as moot Appellant's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint because the proposed amendments pertained solely to Appellant's state law claims, over which the court had already declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Appellant filed the instant appeal on October 16, 2019. She challenges only two parts of the district court's October 15 order: (1) the grant of Appellees’ motion to dismiss the constitutional claim against Principal Foster in her individual capacity; and (2) the sua sponte dismissal of the constitutional claim brought against the School District. We reject both of Appellant's challenges and affirm the district court in full.

II.

We review a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. See Lucero v. Early , 873 F.3d 466, 469 (4th Cir. 2017). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."

Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). At this stage of review, we must draw "all reasonable inferences in favor of" Appellant, the plaintiff below. Carey v....