28 F.4th 529
4th Cir.2022Background
- On Feb. 15, 2018 (day after the Parkland shooting), student Jonathan Starbuck engaged in a factual classroom conversation about the shooting; a teacher reported the remarks as a potential threat.
- School staff removed Starbuck from classes that day (in-school suspension); the school police investigated and cleared the teacher’s report as unfounded.
- An assistant principal later informed Starbuck’s parent of a two-day out-of-school suspension; the stated reasons shifted (safety/threats initially, later "classroom disturbance").
- Starbuck appealed; in May 2018 the Williamsburg–James City County School Board reviewed and affirmed the suspension, leaving it on his permanent record.
- Starbuck sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on Monell grounds.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed as to Monell and the First Amendment (holding the Board’s approval could constitute Monell liability and the First Amendment claim was plausible) and affirmed dismissal of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether School Board action can constitute an actionable "policy" under Monell | Starbuck: Board’s approval/ratification of the suspension is a final policymaker act that supplies municipal liability | School Board: Monell requires an express preexisting policy; cannot be sued for subordinate acts | Held: Board’s decision (or ratification) by a final policymaker can be a Monell policy; dismissal on that basis was error |
| Whether suspension violated the First Amendment | Starbuck: his remarks were factual, nonthreatening discussion about a newsworthy event and thus protected speech | School Board: speech reasonably perceived as threatening school violence is unprotected | Held: Viewing complaint in plaintiff’s favor, the speech is plausibly protected and the First Amendment claim survives dismissal |
| Whether the Fifth Amendment applies/was violated | Starbuck: alleged various Fifth Amendment claims in complaint | School Board: Fifth does not apply to municipal actors or school discipline; Self‑Incrimination/Double Jeopardy not implicated | Held: Fifth Amendment claims fail (no viable Fifth Amendment theory pleaded) |
| Whether the School Board violated Fourteenth Amendment due process by changing the reason for suspension | Starbuck: Board’s shift in stated reason deprived him of fair notice and opportunity to respond | School Board: labels changed only slightly; Starbuck had notice and multiple opportunities to explain | Held: No due process violation; Board provided required notice and opportunity to be heard; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires an official policy or custom)
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (student speech protected unless it materially disrupts school)
- Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L. ex rel. Levy, 141 S. Ct. 2038 (limits on regulating off‑campus/on‑campus student speech; categories of unprotected student speech)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (single decision by final policymaker can impose municipal liability)
- City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (municipal liability for actions by officials with final policymaking authority)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (municipal liability via failure to train where deliberate indifference shown)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (due process protections for student suspensions: notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Lytle v. Doyle, 326 F.3d 463 (describing four routes to municipal liability under Monell)
- Riddick v. Sch. Bd. of Portsmouth, 238 F.3d 518 (Virginia school boards are final policymakers for certain student discipline appeals)
- Hall v. Marion Sch. Dist. No. 2, 31 F.3d 183 (ratification and independent policymaker acts can ground municipal liability)