A.S. v. Lincoln Cnty. R-III Sch. Dist.
| Citation | 429 F.Supp.3d 659 |
| Decision Date | 17 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:19-CV-91 CDP |
| Parties | A.S., a minor, BY AND THROUGH Next Friend, Chris SCHAEFER, Plaintiff, v. LINCOLN COUNTY R-III SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Daniel J. Rhoads, The Rhoads Firm, LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.
Natalie A. Hoernschemeyer, Joshua Elliot Douglass, Mickes O'Toole, LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Defendants.
Public high school student, A.S., engaged in off-campus speech on social media that targeted a fellow student, and he encouraged other high school students to perpetuate the speech. Because this speech was directed to and reached the school community and it was reasonably foreseeable that the speech would cause substantial disruption in the school environment, the school did not violate A.S.'s First Amendment right to free speech by imposing discipline for A.S.'s violation of the school district's cyberbullying policy. Nor did the school disciplinary hearing violate A.S.'s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. I will therefore grant defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings on these constitutional claims. I will remand A.S.'s remaining state law claim to the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, Missouri.
On a Saturday in October 2018, A.S. created a post on the social media platform Snapchat that included a doctored photograph depicting fellow student C.S. in a casket, words referring to C.S.'s funeral and visitation at a funeral home, and ‘crying’ and ‘praying hands’ emojis. A.S. shared this post with a limited group of classmates on Snapchat and encouraged them to post the meme to their own Snapchat stories, which they did. The following Monday at school, C.S. placed another student in a chokehold during class, upset about that student's comments about his death. After investigation, Assistant Principal Joy Lillard suspended A.S. for ten days for violating the school district's cyberbullying policy. The district's superintendent extended the suspension to the end of the semester. The school district's board of education held a hearing and upheld the extended suspension.
A.S. (through his next friend) brought this action in state court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants Lillard and the school district violated his First Amendment rights by suspending him for engaging in protected speech and, further, that the manner by which they conducted the discipline hearing denied him his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.1 A.S. also seeks judicial review of the school district's action under Missouri law. Defendants removed the matter to this Court, invoking federal subject matter jurisdiction. They now move for judgment on the pleadings on A.S.'s constitutional claims.2
When considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), I must "accept as true all factual allegations set out in the complaint, and must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, drawing all inferences in his favor." Wishnatsky v. Rovner, 433 F.3d 608, 610 (8th Cir. 2006). "Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate only when there is no dispute as to any material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.]" Ashley Cty., Ark. v. Pfizer, Inc. , 552 F.3d 659, 665 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
I review a motion for judgment on the pleadings under the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Clemons v. Crawford, 585 F.3d 1119, 1124 (8th Cir. 2009). Therefore, I consider all facts alleged in the complaint as true to determine if the complaint states 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) ; see also Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Although a complaint need not contain "detailed factual allegations," it must contain sufficient factual allegations "to raise a right to relief beyond the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).
In addition to the complaint, I may consider exhibits that are attached to the complaint as well as materials necessarily embraced by the complaint, without having to convert the motion to one for summary judgment. Humphrey v. Eureka Gardens Pub. Facility Bd. , 891 F.3d 1079, 1081 (8th Cir. 2018) ; Ryan v. Ryan , 889 F.3d 499, 505 (8th Cir. 2018). Materials necessarily embraced by the complaint include "documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading." Ryan , 889 F.3d at 505 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Upon review of the complaint here, I consider the administrative record consisting of the hearing transcript and evidence before the board of education, as well as the board of education's findings of fact and conclusions of law – both filed in this action by A.S. separately from his complaint – to be materials necessarily embraced by and consistent with the complaint. Accordingly, on this motion for judgment on the pleadings, I consider these materials as well as the allegations in the complaint and the exhibit attached to the complaint.
In October 2018, A.S. and C.S. were students enrolled at Troy Buchanan High School, which is a public school within the Lincoln County R-III School District. Joy Lillard was assistant principal at the school. Dr. Mark Penny was the school district's superintendent.
On Saturday, October 6, 2018, A.S. created a meme entitled "[C.]'s funeral."3 The meme was a photograph of a casket with a photo of C.S. superimposed on it, positioned to make it appear as though C.S. was lying in the casket. Words superimposed above the casket stated, "please show up with only positive vibes"; and words superimposed beneath the casket stated, "at Kember-Millard-Keon Family Funeral Chapel." Emojis of a ‘crying-face’ and ‘praying-hands’ were also part of the meme. A.S. was not at school when he created the meme, nor was he at a school-sponsored event. A.S. did not use any school property to make the meme.
On that same day, October 6, A.S. posted the meme to a private Snapchat group made up of other Troy Buchanan High School students. A.S. encouraged the members of this private group to post the meme to their own Snapchat stories, which they did. Posting a meme to a Snapchat story causes the meme to circulate outside any private Snapchat group and makes it available to all persons who "follow" the Snapchat user. Other students also created and posted memes about C.S. and his "death."
The date on which A.S. created, posted, and shared the funeral meme with other students, and encouraged these other students to publicly share the meme, was Troy Buchanan High School's homecoming.
On Monday, October 8, during the fourth class period at the high school, C.S. entered a classroom and put another student, L.P., into a chokehold. The teacher emailed Lillard and informed her of this incident, stating, (ECF 6-1.) The teacher also informed Lillard that "we have things under control" and that she did not write up the students, but she suggested that Lillard "have a conversation" with them. (Id. )
During her investigation into the incident, Lillard learned about the funeral meme and that A.S. had created it. When she talked to A.S. about it, he admitted to making the meme, posting it, and telling others to post it; but he stated that he never posted it publicly nor meant for it to become public. A.S. stated that other persons created additional memes of C.S. and that the group thought it would be funny to act as if C.S. was dead. A.S. memorialized these statements in a written statement. (Admin. Rec., ECF 4 at pp. 71-72.)
Lillard spoke to A.S. about the funeral meme on October 11. At that time, A.S. was serving an out-of-school suspension for posting a photo of a student's bare buttocks to a teacher's "remind app," a school-related homework site used by the teacher and accessed by students. That suspension was imposed October 1 and was set to expire November 13. A.S. was serving this suspension in the district's Academic Educational Program (AEP), which is a program located in a district building separate from the high school. Students participating in AEP receive daily instruction on coursework as well as lessons on positive behavior supports, and they receive full credit for coursework completed while in AEP. A.S.'s suspension for cyberbullying, which is at issue in this case, would not begin until he finished serving his suspension for the "remind app" incident.
On October 11, Lillard disciplined A.S. for cyberbullying and imposed a ten-day, out-of-school suspension. She also referred the matter to the superintendent of schools for consideration of extended suspension. In a letter dated October 12, Lillard informed A.S.'s parents that A.S. had been suspended for ten school days, effective October 11, and that the matter had been referred to the superintendent. In a letter dated October 19, Superintendent Penny notified A.S.'s parents of his decision to extend A.S.'s out-of-school suspension through the end of the semester.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClelland v. Katy Indep. Sch. Dist.
...... GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss, DENIES. AS MOOT the Motion to Strike and Motions to Quash,. and DENIES the ...1997); see also. Harris ex rel. Harris v. Pontotoc Cnty. Sch. Dist. , 635. F.3d 685, 690 (5th Cir.2011) (“A student's ... the analysis. See id. at 1209. In A.S. v. Lincoln County R-III School District , the court granted. judgment on the ......
-
Here, There, and Everywhere: Defining the Boundaries of the "Schoolhouse Gate" in the Era of Virtual Learning.
...Unified Sch. Dist., 711 F. Supp. 2d 1094, 1098 (C.D. Cal. 2010); see also A.S. ex rel. Schaefer v. Lincoln Cnty. R-III Sch. Dist., 429 F. Supp. 3d 659, 664 (E.D. Mo. (2.) See Reply Brief for Petitioner at *2-3, Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L. ex rel. Levy, 141 S. Ct. 2038 (2021) (No. 20-255......