Wooleyhan v. Cape Henlopen Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 17 May 2011 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-153 |
| Parties | ROGER D. WOOLEYHAN, Plaintiff, v. CAPE HENLOPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
This action arises out of Defendant Cape Henlopen High School teacher Amanda R. Jester's ("Jester") accusation that Plaintiff Roger D. Wooleyhan ("Wooleyhan"), a student at the school, offensively touched her. Wooleyhan asserts several civil rights and state-law claims against Jester and various other public officials for their handling of the accusation.
All individual Defendants seek summary judgment. After careful consideration of the parties' briefing, supplemental letters to the Court, and an exhaustive review of the record, as well as oral argument, the Court is prepared to rule on the motions. For the reasons that follow, certain defendants-William Matt ("Matt"), John Yore ("Yore"), Dianne Mrazeck ("Mrazeck"), Robert Maull ("Maull"), and John Walsh ("Walsh")-are entitled to summary judgment on Wooleyhan's individual capacity claims, while the remaining defendants-Jester and Lisa White ("White")1-are only entitled to partial summary judgment.2
On Friday, October 24, 2008, Wooleyhan and his then-girlfriend, Marie Natalie Pineda ("Pineda"), were standing in a hallway of the Cape Henlopen High School (the "School"). At the time, Wooleyhan was an eighteen-year-old senior. Wooleyhan and Pineda were having a conversation when Jester approached and instructed them to go to class. (Jester App., ECF No. 182, at 18.) According to Wooleyhan, Jester physically separated him from Pineda. Wooleyhan denies elbowing Jester. (Sealed App., ECF No. 96, at 111.)
Wooleyhan contends he proceeded to class and Maull and another administrator then removed him from class. (School Defs. App., ECF No. 181, at 2.) He contends Maull advised him he was being suspended and escorted him to the main office. (Id.) Once in the office, Wooleyhan alleges that Jester commented, "[A]nother one down, I got 'em dropping like flies." (Sealed App. at 112.)
In the office, Wooleyhan sat seven to twelve feet away from an open office as Jester described and demonstrated the alleged elbowing. (School Defs. App. at 12.) Wooleyhan admits he was the subject of the conversation and that he could hear some, but not all, of the conversation. (Id. at 11.) Thereafter, Wooleyhan testified that Maull told him he was beingsuspended and asked him to complete a written statement regarding "what happened upstairs." (Id.) Although Wooleyhan testified he did not know why he was in the office or of what he was accused, he indicated in this written statement that "I guess she thought that I must have bumped into her arms." (Id., at 11-13; see id. at 32.) Wooleyhan does not mention meeting with Yore on October 24. (See Sealed App. at 111-14.)
Matt arrested Wooleyhan and took him to the local State Police facility for fingerprinting and processing. (Id. at 114; Pl.'s Matt App., ECF No. 186, at 6.) Following Wooleyhan's arrest and booking, he returned to the School, at which time Maull informed him that the School had suspended him for three days. (School Defs. App. at 14.) At this meeting, Wooleyhan admits that Maull gave him "the whole spiel" of why he was being suspended, he did not request to see any evidence against him, and he declined the opportunity to comment. (Id. at 14, 22.)3Wooleyhan testified that it did not seem his version of the events mattered. (Id. at 22.)
Wooleyhan's parents met with school administrators more than once, and Wooleyhan attended one of those meetings. (Id. at 23; Pl.'s School Defs. App., ECF No. 185, at 41.) After these meetings, the School Review Committee met on Wednesday, October 29 and recommended a ten-day suspension. (School Defs. App. at 54.) Yore reduced it to three days and Wooleyhan returned on Thursday, October 30. (Id.) Ultimately, Wooleyhan was out of school for three and one-half school days-the remainder of Friday and then Monday through Wednesday. Wooleyhan contends Yore failed to comply with the School's code of conduct throughout the disciplinary process.
On February 3, 2009, Wooleyhan's criminal charges proceeded to trial in the Justice of the Peace Court. (See generally Sealed App. at 26-105.) Matt acted as the prosecutor. (Id.) Before trial and at the close of the State's case, Wooleyhan's counsel moved to dismiss for lack of probable cause.4(See id. at 29-31, 78.) The Justice of the Peace denied both motions, finding Jester's testimony alone established probable cause to proceed. (Id. at 32, 80-81, 104.) Ultimately, the Justice of the Peace found Wooleyhan not guilty, concluding the State had not met its burden of demonstrating guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at 104.)
According to Jester, Wooleyhan and Pineda were "making out" in the hallway and ignoring her and Walsh's instructions to proceed to class. She then approached the students with her arms in front of her and her hands together. (Jester App. at 52-53.) She placed her arms in between the students to separate them. (Id.) At this point, Jester claims Wooleyhan intentionally elbowed her in the chest. (Id. at 71-72.)
With the help of Maull and a hall monitor, Jester escorted Wooleyhan to the school's main office. (Id. at 35; School Defs. App. at 9.) Jester reported the incident to Yore and Matt. (Pl.'s School Defs. App. at 9.) She then learned Wooleyhan's name from a hall monitor and Pineda's name from Walsh. (Id. at 10.) When she returned to the office, she phoned Pineda's mother to advise her of her daughter's behavior. (Id.)
Jester submitted three disciplinary referrals, one of which served as a written report of theincident to Matt. (Jester App. at 140-42; see School Defs. App. at 47.) She filed a referral (1) for Wooleyhan's and Pineda's alleged open display of affection in violation of the School's code of conduct, (2) for Wooleyhan's failure to comply with the teachers' instructions, and (3) for the elbowing incident. (Jester App. at 140-42.) Jester listed Walsh as a referring teacher for each of the three referrals, but acknowledges she never secured his consent to do so. (School Defs. App. at 47, 51, 119-21.) She informed Matt that she wanted Wooleyhan arrested and prosecuted. (See Pl.'s School Defs. App. at 99; Pl.'s Jester App., ECF No. 183, at 34.) She recalls instructing Matt that she "wanted it pursued, whatever that would mean." (Jester App. at 101; Pl.'s Jester App. at 13.) Jester did not participate in the school's disciplinary process any further. Although Jester informed Yore that if anyone deserved an apology it was her, she later stated an apology does nothing for her. (Pl.'s Jester App. at 8, 18-19.)
At Wooleyhan's criminal trial, Jester maintained her assertion that Wooleyhan intentionally elbowed her in the chest. (Sealed App. at 36.)
The Monday after the incident, October 27, 2008, both White and Walsh submitted statements. (School Defs. App. at 33-34.) Walsh recalled that Wooleyhan and Pineda were "hugging and kissing" in the hallway on October 24. (Id. at 33.) He recalled that he and Jester instructed them to stop to no avail. (Id.)
Walsh's statement did not indicate that he witnessed the alleged elbowing, but contained three statements he later admitted were not accurate: that the students were late to class, that Jester did not touch Wooleyhan or Pineda, and Jester only intended to get the students to class. (Pl.'s School Defs. App. at 94-96, 144.) He could not recall if the bell had rung, he turned awaybefore Jester reached Wooleyhan and Pineda, and he did not know Jester's intent. (Id. at 88-91.) He last observed Jester approaching Wooleyhan and Pineda before he returned to his classroom. (Id. at 89-90.) Although Jester listed him as a co-referring teacher, he never disclaimed her account of the incident. (Id. at 92.)
White also prepared a statement on October 27 regarding the incident and a related disruption in her class. In her statement, White indicated that she saw Wooleyhan "push his elbow out toward Mrs. Jester" and later told her class "that the students [sic] moved toward [Jester] with his elbow." (Sealed App. at 117-18.)
White testified at Wooleyhan's criminal trial. (Id. at 59-77.) She testified that she did not witness the incident (Id. at 61-62), but the bell had rung and she was standing in a position to witness the incident (Id. at 60-61). On cross examination, after reviewing the video, she admitted portions of her statement and direct testimony were false because she was not in position to see certain events and inferred the bell had not rung despite her statements that it had. (See id. at 6973.)
Walsh was not subpoenaed and did not appear at the criminal trial. (Id. at 55-56.)
Jester reported the alleged elbowing to Matt. Based on Jester's statement and decision to press charges, Matt arrested Wooleyhan and took him to a local State Police facility for processing and fingerprinting. Matt issued Wooleyhan a criminal summons charging him withoffensive touching in violation of Section 601(a)(1) of Title 11 of the Delaware Code. See Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 601(a)(1) ( ); (Pl.'s School Defs. App. at 107).
Matt testified that he relied on Jester's accusation to arrest Wooleyhan, but did not rely on White's or Walsh's statements. (Matt App. at 8; School Defs. App. at 38-39.) He also offered conflicting responses regarding whether or not he watched the video of the incident prior to or...
To continue reading
Request your trial