Rogers v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist.
| Docket Number | Civil Action 3:21-CV-02072 |
| Decision Date | 06 July 2023 |
| Parties | TAJ K. ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. POCONO MOUNTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Presently before the Court is a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim brought by Defendants Pocono Mountain School District (“School District”) and Kevin Lesoine (“Lesoine”), individually and in his capacity as a teacher at Pocono Mountain East High School (collectively “Defendants”). (Doc. 22). On December 9, 2021 Plaintiff Taj K. Rogers (“Rogers”) initiated this action by filing the complaint pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 42 U.S.C § 1983, and various state law claims. (Doc. 1). Rogers filed the amended complaint on September 1, 2022. (Doc. 18). The parties have consented to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 7). For the following reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss shall be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Doc. 22).
On December 9, 2021, Rogers filed the complaint against Pocono Mountain School District, Dr. Elizabeth Robison, Dr. Marybeth Gustafson, Kevin Lesoine, Daniel Higgins, and Jerusalem Strickland. (Doc. 1). On February 11, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. (Doc. 8). On August 5, 2022, the Court granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing the claim for punitive damages with prejudice, and granted Rogers leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 16; Doc. 17). On September 1, 2022, Rogers filed the amended complaint against the Defendants, asserting the following cases of action: Count I - Section 1983 violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment; Court II - Section 1983 Monell liability; and Count III - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”). (Doc. 18). For relief, Rogers requests compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney's fees. (Doc. 18, at 15, 19, 21).
In the amended complaint, Rogers asserts that he is a nineteen-year-old, African-American, disabled individual with special needs who has been diagnosed with Conduct Disorder, Attention Deficient/Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), and Opposition Defiance Disorder. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 7, 12). Rogers alleges that he is a former student of the School District who was identified as having a specific learning disability in reading fluency and written expression and was a recipient of an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) with the School District. (Doc. 18, ¶ 15). The IEP provided Rogers with an escort, Jerusalem Strickland, and allowed him to wear headphones. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 27-28, 41). Strickland acted as his escort and prior to June 14, 2018, he did so for three months without issue. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 28, 30). Furthermore, Rogers states he was eligible for special education services under the IDEA. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 16). Rogers alleges that he has several disabilities, including specific learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, and opposition defiance disorder, as well as identifiable triggers and trauma-based issues. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 17-21). Rogers states that at all times relevant to this action, he was receiving services in the Colonial Intermediate Unit 20's therapeutic emotional support program with classes located in the Pocono Mountain East High School, which provides support and structure for students who have demonstrated a distinct lack of success at school adjustment due to emotional and behavioral issues. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 23-24).
The events giving rise to this action follow. On June 14, 2018, Rogers arrived at the High School and did not see Strickland. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 32-33). A staff member instructed Rogers to proceed to his emotional support classroom, and he thereafter did so with another classmate, who was Caucasian. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 34-37). While walking in the hallway to the classroom, Rogers was wearing his earbud-style headphones when Lesoine approached Rogers and asked him to remove his headphones, but Rogers did not hear him. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 40, 44). Rogers states “Lesoine had not been made aware of Rogers' IEP requiring an escort, or earbuds as an accommodation, by the Pocono Mountain East High School or the School District.” (Doc. 18, ¶ 45). Rogers alleges that Lesoine did not have a visible identification badge and did not identify himself as a teacher. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 48-49). Lesoine continued to follow Rogers and requested he remove his headphones. (Doc. 18, ¶ 46). Roger avers that Lesoine did not make any comments to the Caucasian, female student who was walking with Rogers. (Doc. 18, ¶ 51). Rogers claims he asked Lesoine who he was, asked other teachers in the hallway about who was following him, and asked Lesoine to leave him alone. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 53-55).
Once Rogers arrived at the emotional support classroom and continued to refused to remove his headphones, Lesoine allegedly “pressed his forearm against [Rogers'] chest multiple times,” and Rogers “removed Lesoine's forearm from his chest at which point Lesoine stated, ‘now you're going to jail.'” (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 58-59). At that point, Rogers and Lesoine became involved in a verbal and physical altercation. (Doc. 18, ¶ 60). Rogers alleges that only after the altercation did Lesoine remove his lanyard from inside his shirt identifying him as a teacher of Pocono Mountain East High School and the School District. (Doc. 18, ¶ 61). As a result of that altercation, a discipline report was generated by Pocono Mountain High School and the School District, a manifestation hearing was conducted on June 18, 2018, by the School District, Rogers was suspended for two days, and Rogers was formally charged as a juvenile with aggravated assault and related offenses. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 70-73).
On September 13, 2022, Defendants filed the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. (Doc. 22). The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. (Doc. 22; Doc. 23; Doc. 29; Doc. 30).
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a defendant to move to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). “When a party moves to dismiss under more than one Rule 12 ground, the Court must first consider the Rule 12(b)(1) challenge, ‘because if it must dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, all other defenses and objections become moot.' ” A.D. v. Haddon Heights Bd. of Educ., 90 F.Supp.3d 326, 334 (D.N.J. 2015), aff'd, 833 F.3d 389 (3d Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) challenges the jurisdiction of the court to address the merits of the plaintiff's complaint.” Vieth v. Pennsylvania, 188 F.Supp.2d 532, 537 (M.D. Pa. 2002). The failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a jurisdictional issue and the appropriate device to raise this issue is a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). See Batchelor v. Rose Tree Media Sch. Dist., 759 F.3d 266, 271 (3d Cir. 2014). A Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal is not a judgment on the merits, but only a determination that the court lacks the authority to hear the case. Swope v. Central York Sch. Dist., 796 F.Supp.2d 592, 599 (M.D. Pa. 2011).
Rule 12(b)(1) challenges may be “facial” or “factual.” See Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. &Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977). A facial attack challenges whether jurisdiction has been properly pled and requires the court to “only consider the allegations of the complaint and documents referenced therein and attached thereto, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891.) Conversely, when a defendant sets forth a factual attack on subject-matter jurisdiction, “the Court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself whether it has power to hear the case. . . ‘no presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff's allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims.' ” Carpet Group Int'l v. Oriental Rug Importers Ass'n,Inc., 227 F.3d 62, 69 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891).
In this case, Defendants challenge Rogers's alleged failure to exhaust administrate remedies and, thus, present a factual attack on subject-matter jurisdiction. See Rohrbaugh b/a/t Rohrbaugh v. Lincoln Intermediate Unit, 255 F.Supp.3d 589, 592 (M.D. Pa. 2017). As a result, the Court will weigh the allegations in the complaint without presuming truthfulness in order to determine the merits of the jurisdictional claim.
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a defendant to move to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6). “Under Rule 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss may be granted only if, accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint are true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court finds the plaintiff's claims lack facial plausibility.” Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen Inc., 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)). Although a court must accept the factual allegations in a complaint as true, it is not compelled to accept “unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences, or a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Morrow v. Balaski, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial