898 F. Supp. 2d 516
E.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Infant plaintiffs J.E., C.E., C.E. Jr., and S.E. and their mother Victoria Edwards sue Center Moriches District, High School, Board of Education and several staff under §1983, §1985, §1986, Title VI, and NY Education Law over an April 4, 2003 riot at Center Moriches High School, disciplinary proceedings, and related tutoring and PINS actions.
- District Defendants and Tom Kretsos move for summary judgment on federal claims; magistrate judge recommends grant of federal claims and dismissal of state claims without prejudice; plaintiffs object, and the district court adopts the R&R.
- Court addresses substantive due process, procedural due process, equal protection, First Amendment retaliation, and Title VI claims; holds no conscience-shocking conduct is shown, due process was provided, no discriminatory intent proven, and First Amendment retaliation claim is unsupported.
- Tutoring and post-deprivation remedies provided; NY OCR investigation cited with no finding of discriminatory discipline; disciplinary hearing conducted by independent hearing officer Dr. Nelson; Superintendent Cicero adopted findings and penalties.
- Court grants summary judgment on federal claims, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, and dismisses state claims without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process claim viability | Kretsos’ slurs and punching violated J.E. and C.E.; injuries were substantial | No evidence of malicious or conscience-shocking conduct; actions during riot were to stop the fight | Claims fail as a matter of law |
| Procedural due process for disciplinary hearings | Infant plaintiffs were deprived of process; tutoring and hearing rights violated | Procedures met due process requirements; notice, counsel, hearing, and post-deprivation remedies provided | Procedural due process satisfied; motions granted on this claim |
| Equal protection / selective enforcement | Disparate treatment based on race/native origin | No evidence of similarly situated comparators; no discriminatory intent shown | Equal protection claim fails; summary judgment granted |
| First Amendment retaliation against Victoria Edwards | Actions (tutoring denial and PINS filing) retaliated against speech | No evidence actions were retaliatory or tied to protected activity | Claim dismissed as unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Newburgh Enlarged Sch. Dist., 239 F.3d 246 (2d Cir.2001) (substantive due process violations require conscience-shocking conduct in school)
- Smith v. Half Hollow Hills Cent. Sch. Dist., 298 F.3d 168 (2d Cir.2002) (teacher misconduct not necessarily due process violation)
- DeFabio v. East Hampton Union Free Sch. Dist., 658 F.Supp.2d 461 (E.D.N.Y.2009) (due process in school disciplinary contexts)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (Supreme Court) (student due process rights in suspensions)
- Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (Supreme Court) (role of due process in school disciplinary settings)