341 F. Supp. 3d 188
E.D.N.Y2018Background
- Two Kings Park High School students (A.F. and K.P.), then tenth-graders, received an unsolicited sexually explicit video via text off-campus and deleted it; they did not possess the video at school.
- Principal Bracco issued one-day out-of-school suspensions, citing "inappropriate use of an electronic device." The school disciplinary List of Infractions did not use that exact phrase; Level IV infractions permitting out-of-school suspension described active misconduct (e.g., transmitting/possessing obscene material).
- The Board of Education upheld the suspensions; the students appealed to the New York State Commissioner of Education, who overturned and ordered expungement, finding no nexus to school disruption and that the suspensions were arbitrary and capricious.
- Plaintiffs filed a § 1983 suit alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments (void-for-vagueness of the code, due process, First Amendment chilling/association). Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court accepted the complaint's factual allegations as true but dismissed the § 1983 claims, finding plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead either a Fourteenth Amendment vagueness/due-process violation or a cognizable First Amendment chill or retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the school's disciplinary rules unconstitutionally vague as applied? | School's term "inappropriate use of an electronic device" gave no notice that merely receiving/deleting an off-campus explicit video could be punished. | The code provided sufficient notice; discipline addressed misconduct and was not void-for-vagueness. | Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to plausibly show the code was unconstitutionally vague as applied. |
| Did the one-day out-of-school suspensions violate procedural or substantive due process? | The suspensions deprived students' property/right to education without adequate standards and were arbitrary. | One-day suspensions are de minimis or, in any event, school procedures satisfied due process. | Dismissed: court could not find a Fourteenth Amendment violation; not plausibly arbitrary/conscience-shocking or procedurally deficient for § 1983 relief. |
| Did defendants violate the First Amendment by chilling speech or retaliating? | Discipline and the Superintendent's expungement-offer produced an objective chill of future expressive association/speech. | The video constituted child pornography (not protected) and plaintiffs fail to allege any actual or specific future chilling/injury. | Dismissed: no protected speech or concrete/chilling injury alleged; retaliation and chill claims fail. |
| Are individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity or not personally liable? | Plaintiffs allege Bracco initiated suspensions and Eagen reviewed/offered expungement; thus personal involvement. | Defendants argue lack of personal involvement and seek qualified immunity. | Court declined to reach qualified immunity after dismissing underlying constitutional claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (recognizes property interest in public education and due-process protections for suspensions)
- Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (students retain First Amendment rights at school)
- Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (school speech regulation need not be as detailed as criminal codes)
- Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (§ 1983 is not for relitigation of school disciplinary errors absent constitutional violations)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (void-for-vagueness principles and need for fair notice and standards)
- New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (child pornography is unprotected speech)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not accepted; plausibility standard applied)