Swearingen v. Pleasanton Unified Sch. Dist. 344

• Decision Date: 16 November 2022
• Docket Number: 20-2630-DDC-TJJ
• Parties: ALEXIS SWEARINGEN, Plaintiff, v. PLEASANTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 344, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

ALEXIS SWEARINGEN, Plaintiff, v. PLEASANTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 344, et al., Defendants.

No. 20-2630-DDC-TJJ

United States District Court, D. Kansas

November 16, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Daniel D. Crabtree, United States District Judge.

In 2017, plaintiff Alexis Swearingen, then 15 years old attended Pleasanton High School in Linn County, Kansas. She met David Allen Huggins, the 44-year-old father of one of plaintiff's friends, through Huggins's daughter. Huggins, a sworn Deputy Sheriff in Linn County, worked as a School Resource Officer assigned to plaintiff's high school. He initiated a sexual relationship with plaintiff and eventually impregnated her. When other law enforcement officials discovered Huggins's conduct, they charged him with several crimes. Huggins later pleaded guilty to aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and he now resides in a Kansas prison where he's serving a 183-month sentence.

In this civil case, plaintiff has sued Linn County's Board of County Commissioners, the Sheriff for that county, and the school district who operates Pleasanton High. All three defendants now move for summary judgment against all the claims that survived earlier motion practice. These defendants readily concede that Huggins's conduct was reprehensible, and he should have known better. But the current crop of motions^[1] requires the court to decide a similar but different question: Who else should have known better?

The court concludes that plaintiff has shown she is legally entitled to a trial on some of her claims. Below, after reciting the facts that control the decision at this stage the court explains its legal reasoning.

Table of Contents

I. Background . . . 4

A. Factual Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

B. Procedural Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

II. Legal Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

III. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

A. Defendant Friend's Capacity as Sheriff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

B. Title IX Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

1. Defendants Linn County BOCC and Friend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

2. Defendant USD 344 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

C. Section 1983 Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

D. State Negligence Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

1. Defendant Linn County BOCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

2. Defendant USD 344 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

3. Defendant Friend. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

E. Proceeding Without Linn County BOCC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

IV. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 I. Background

The Linn County Board of County Commissioners (Linn County BOCC) and Sheriff Kevin Friend seek summary judgment against both of plaintiff's federal claims (Title IX and § 1983) and her state law claims for negligence. The school district defendant, Pleasanton Unified School District 344 (USD 344), seeks summary judgement against the lone federal claim asserted against it (a Title IX claim) and the state law negligence claims. The following facts control these summary judgment motions.

A. Factual Background

Parties and Actors

Plaintiff Alexis Swearingen is a Kansas resident who, during the events pertinent to this suit, attended Pleasanton High School. Doc. 109 at 2-4 (Pretrial Order ¶¶ 2.a.1., 2.a.16.). David Allen Huggins was a Linn County Deputy Sheriff assigned to Pleasanton High School as a School Resource Officer (SRO). Id. at 3 (Pretrial Order ¶ 2.a.5.). The National Association of School Resource Officers certified Huggins for the SRO position. Id. (Pretrial Order ¶ 2.a.15.). Before joining the Linn County Sheriff's Office (LCSO), Huggins served as a police officer in the La Cygne Police Department (LCPD), a city in Linn County. Id. (Pretrial Order ¶ 2.a.11.). Defendant Pleasanton Unified School District 344 is a Kansas public school district located in Linn County. It operates Pleasanton High School. Id. at 2-3 (Pretrial Order ¶ 2.a.4.). Defendant Board of County Commissioners of Linn County is a governmental body. Id. at 2 (Pretrial Order ¶ 2.a.2.). During the relevant period, Paul Filla served as Linn County's Sheriff. Id. at 3 (Pretrial Order ¶ 2.a.13.). Before becoming the Sheriff, Filla had served as Chief of Police for LCPD. Id. (Pretrial Order ¶ 2.a.12.). In 2019, voters elected defendant Kevin Friend as Sheriff of Linn County. Id. at 2 (Pretrial Order ¶ 2.a.3.); Doc. 115 at 33. Plaintiff has sued Friend in his official capacity as the Sheriff. Doc. 109 at 2 (Pretrial Order ¶ 2.a.3.).

Some of the summary judgment facts involve several persons who are not named as parties. They are:

• Travis Laver, who served as Superintendent of Schools for Pleasanton Unified School District 344.

• Mitch Shaw, who served as Pleasanton High School's principal.

• Jessica and Ryan Swearingen, who are plaintiff's mother and father.

• Ashley Huggins, David Allen Huggins's daughter, who also was plaintiff's friend and classmate.

• Chasity Greene, who is the parent of a child attending Pleasanton High School.

• Bobby Johnson, who served as a detective with the Linn County Sheriff's Office.

• Michael Feagins, who served as an officer with the Mound City Police Department-another city in Linn County.

• Paul McKee, who served as the Chief of Police for the Mound City Police Department and also as a member of USD 344's School Board.

• Tom “Chip” More, who served as a Deputy Sheriff with the Linn County Sheriff's Office.

• John Heidrick, who worked as a teacher at Pleasanton High.

• Clint Johnson, who served as a Deputy Sheriff with the Linn County Sheriff's Office, a School Resource Officer for the Jayhawk-Linn School District, and a School Resource Unit supervisor. In his supervisory role, Johnson was responsible for supervising all six SROs who worked in Linn County's schools.

USD 344 School Resource Officer Program

The LCSO entered a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in January 2016 with the three school districts in Linn County including USD 344. Under the MOU, LCSO agreed to provide School Resource Officers to the county's middle and high schools. Doc. 111-5 at 1 (Def. Ex. 5). The SRO program for USD 344 didn't use grant money, relying instead on community funding. Doc. 109 at 3 (Pretrial Order ¶ 2.a.10.). Under this MOU, LCSO agreed to “provide SROs [who] have been certified as law enforcement officers through the State of Kansas and shall have obtained the necessary training and skills customary for officers in the Sheriff Office.” Doc. 111-5 at 3 (Def. Ex. 5). The school districts agreed in the MOU to provide offices in school buildings “during the regular school year suitable to allow for privacy in student/faculty communications[,]” office equipment, and training “on topics such as school discipline procedures, adolescence, and special needs.” Id. at 3-4. All the parties to the MOU agreed that the “SROs will be jointly supervised by the Linn County Sheriff and the Superintendent of Schools.” Id. at 3. Specifically, the Sheriff agreed to supervise “their law enforcement responsibilities and ensure they are following all applicable laws[,]” while the school superintendents monitored the SROs' adherence “to the school board's policies and procedures, ensuring proper use of any and all data as it relates to a student's educational record.” Id.

The MOU also framed the SRO's role in the schools. It provided that “SROs will build rapport and trust with students by maintaining a high level of visibility on campus during the regular school day[,]” and that they “will provide discussion and counseling services through classroom-based, small group-based and individual sessions with students[.]” Id. at 2. Superintendent Laver and Sheriff Filla later explained how they viewed the SRO's role:

When an individual puts on the badge to perform duties as a law enforcement officer that person is entrusted with [a] high level of trust to the department and the community they serve. When that same officer is assigned to the school in the capacity of a resource officer there is a higher level of trust that comes with that position since they now are caring for the future of the county, the students, they serve and the staff of the school they are assigned to.

Doc. 124-15 (Pl. Ex. O).^[2] Importantly, the MOU expects the SRO to “adhere to all applicable laws of the...