Wise v. Pea Ridge School Dist. No. 109

• Decision Date: 23 December 1987
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 87-5027.
• Parties: Daniel WISE, a minor By and Through his parents, Leroy WISE and Sandra Wise, husband and wife, Leroy Wise and Sandra Wise, individually; Michael Decker, a minor By and Through his parents, Dwain Decker and Mary Decker, husband and wife, and Dwain Decker and Mary Decker, individually, Plaintiffs, v. The PEA RIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT #109, as a public body corporate; James C. Carlton, individually, and in his official capacity as Superintendent of Pea Ridge Schools; Bill Alvarez, individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of Pea Ridge Schools; Bruce Norwood, individually and in his official capacity as Principal of Pea Ridge Schools; Russell Davidson, individually and in his official capacity as Principal of Pea Ridge Schools; Kenneth Patterson, individually and in his official capacity as President of the Pea Ridge School Board of Education; Ronald Foster, individually and in his official capacity as President of the Pea Ridge School Board of Education; Kent Webb, individually and in his official capacity as Vice-President of the Pea Ridge School Board of Education; Tony Fletcher, individually and in his official capacity as Secretary of Pea Ridge School Board of Education; Douglas McKinney, individually and in his official capacity as a Member of the Pea Ridge School Board of Education; Larry Walker, individually and in his official capacity as Pea Ridge Coach, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas

675 F. Supp. 1524

Daniel WISE, a minor By and Through his parents, Leroy WISE and Sandra Wise, husband and wife, Leroy Wise and Sandra Wise, individually; Michael Decker, a minor By and Through his parents, Dwain Decker and Mary Decker, husband and wife, and Dwain Decker and Mary Decker, individually, Plaintiffs, v. The PEA RIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT #109, as a public body corporate; James C. Carlton, individually, and in his official capacity as Superintendent of Pea Ridge Schools; Bill Alvarez, individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of Pea Ridge Schools; Bruce Norwood, individually and in his official capacity as Principal of Pea Ridge Schools; Russell Davidson, individually and in his official capacity as Principal of Pea Ridge Schools; Kenneth Patterson, individually and in his official capacity as President of the Pea Ridge School Board of Education; Ronald Foster, individually and in his official capacity as President of the Pea Ridge School Board of Education; Kent Webb, individually and in his official capacity as Vice-President of the Pea Ridge School Board of Education; Tony Fletcher, individually and in his official capacity as Secretary of Pea Ridge School Board of Education; Douglas McKinney, individually and in his official capacity as a Member of the Pea Ridge School Board of Education; Larry Walker, individually and in his official capacity as Pea Ridge Coach, Defendants.

Civ. No. 87-5027.

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division.

December 23, 1987.

Charles S. Trantham, Fayetteville, Ark., for plaintiffs.

Walter B. Cox, Davis, Cox & Wright, Fayetteville, Ark., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

H. FRANKLIN WATERS, Chief Judge.

This is a case in which two students of the Pea Ridge School District claim violation of their constitutional rights. Daniel Wise, by his parent and next friend, LeRoy Wise sued the defendants in their individual and official capacities for denying him both procedural and substantive due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because of an act of corporal punishment administered to him on February 20, 1986. Michael Decker, by his parents and next friends, Dwain Decker and Mary Decker, brought virtually identical claims against the defendants as a result of being confined for a period of several days to an alternative school program administered by the School District. Although the complaint is phrased primarily in terms of procedural due process, the plaintiffs assert that their main claim is premised on a violation of substantive due process. The defendants are the Pea Ridge School District, employees of the School District and members of the School Board.

This case was originally set for trial during the week of August 17, 1987. As a result of a trial brief filed on behalf of the defendants, it was drawn to the court's attention that subject matter jurisdiction over the § 1983 claim might be lacking in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977). In an effort to resolve this issue, the court held a hearing on August 12, 1987, at which time the parties were advised, in the interests of judicial economy, that the court wished to reach a final determination concerning subject matter jurisdiction prior to there being a trial on this matter. Therefore, the court requested that the defendants file a motion for summary judgment. This motion for summary judgment is now before the court for decision.

Factual Background

Daniel Wise was a sixth grade student at Pea Ridge School in Pea Ridge, Arkansas. Daniel and his parents allege that "Coach Larry Walker did inflict appreciable physical pain and harm by using a paddle causing severe bruises and welts to the buttocks of plaintiff." On February 20, 1986, Daniel was one of a group of six boys who were playing "dodge ball" on the sidelines during a physical education class. According to Daniel, the boys had developed their own version of the game which involved attempting to hit each other in the head with a basketball. Coach Walker after observing this behavior, required the boys to sit out the rest of the class, and after class, administered discipline to all six boys by means of corporal punishment. Each boy was given "two licks" on the buttocks with a wooden paddle approximately one-half inch thick, three inches wide, and twenty-two inches long. This punishment was administered by Coach Walker in the presence of two witnesses as is required by the disciplinary guidelines adopted by the School Board. The disciplinary policy authorizes various methods of discipline including corporal punishment.

Portions of the record introduced with the motion for summary judgment and response thereto reveal that this same group of six boys had been warned by Coach Walker, approximately one month before the incident which is the subject of this lawsuit, not to play "dodge ball" in this manner as it was dangerous. A second warning was apparently given at some point prior to the paddling incident. Although Daniel states he did not directly hear this second warning, he did know it had been given.

As a result of this paddling, Daniel developed bruises on his buttocks. After school Daniel was taken to a doctor by his father and brother. No treatment was given and Daniel was advised to take Tylenol for any pain he was suffering. Daniel did not miss any school the day of the paddling or at any time thereafter as a result of the paddling.

Mr. Wise, Daniel's father, filed a complaint that night at the local police department against Coach Walker stating that the punishment administered was excessive. In addition, Mr. Wise complains that he was not notified either prior to or after the punishment was administered as is required by the school's policy. The school's discipline policy states "the principal and the student's parent or legal guardian will be notified by the teacher when corporal punishment is administered."

It appears from the record that the principal did at least attempt to contact Mr. Wise. Telephone records were submitted which indicate a phone call was placed to Mr. Wise's place of employment — the number he provided the school. Mr. Alvarez's affidavit stated he was informed that Mr. Wise would not talk with him. Despite this, Mr. Wise states he was never informed of the phone call. No other efforts were taken to inform Mr. Wise of the punishment.

Michael Decker was also a student at Pea Ridge School. Michael was classified as a special education student because of a learning disability — in this case a reading disorder. As a result, Michael has several classes each day with the Special Education teacher. The Special Education Committee at the school had determined that Michael would not be adversely affected by the disciplinary policies of the school district.

Michael and his parents claim deprivation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by virtue of his being confined for three days, as a disciplinary measure, in a "small room where he was unsupervised and was denied access to a restroom." In addition, his parents assert they were not given notice of this disciplinary measure and that Michael's mother was denied access to Michael's school records.

Pea Ridge School District maintains an alternative school which is sometimes referred to as the Special Assignments Class or commonly called SAC. A student who has been a behavior or discipline problem may be assigned to SAC in lieu of suspension from school. Basically, it is a form of in-school suspension.

The students assigned to SAC are in a separate classroom for the entire day or days depending on the length of assignment. Michael describes this classroom as being approximately 8 by 10 feet or 10 by 12 feet, carpeted, containing eight study carrels, a teacher's desk, windows, and being located next to the restroom. Defendants state the room contains approximately 34 square feet per child assuming the room is at its capacity of eight students. Defendants further state that this figure is above the minimum 30 square feet of classroom space per child recommended by Arkansas law. Pictures of this room were also submitted to the court.

The students assigned to SAC are given their normal classroom assignments which are completed in duplicate with one copy going to their "regular" teacher and one copy remaining with the "SAC" teacher. Different teachers supervise the SAC students throughout the day and, according to Michael, the room is left unsupervised approximately one-third of the time. Part of this time tapes are being played for the students.

The SAC students eat lunch together in the school cafeteria but are not allowed to intermingle with the other students. Restroom breaks are apparently taken at three times throughout the day. If a student needs to visit the restroom at other times it is necessary to ask permission of the supervising SAC teacher. Michael states that some teachers are more lenient than others in allowing a student extra restroom breaks. Michael further states that he has never asked for permission for an extra restroom break and been denied. Rather he seems to suggest he didn't ask because he felt the request would be denied based on his observations.

A student may be assigned to SAC for various infractions of the school rules including unexcused tardies. The policy states "students who aquire sic three (3) unexcused tardies per nine weeks will automatically be assigned two (2) days of Alternative School. Any student who accumulates more than three unexcused tardys sic per each nine week period will result in an extra day of assignment to Alternate School for each additional unexcused tardy."

According to Michael, a student becomes aware of an upcoming assignment to SAC by means of a list which is posted at various places throughout the school. Michael's name was placed on this list because he acquired seven...