Kimble v. Kingston City School District
1:18-cv-00575
| N.D.N.Y. | Mar 19, 2019Background
- Kimble, a Town of Ulster police officer who served as a school resource officer, alleges Kingston City School District refused to hire him as a school security officer and removed him from school assignments after he advocated for his son (MK) about bullying and filed a Notice of Claim on MK's behalf.
- Key events: March–April 2017 complaints to school security staff about threats to MK; Notice of Claim filed June 2017; Kimble completed hiring paperwork and fingerprinting for a summer security position in July 2017 but was told July 27, 2017 he would not be appointed because his son attended the district.
- Kimble claims violations of his First Amendment rights: (1) right to petition (retaliation for filing Notice of Claim/advocacy) and (2) right of intimate association (punished because of relationship with son); he seeks damages for lost income and emotional harm.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing Kimble failed to state First Amendment claims and there is no municipal policy or custom alleged to support Monell liability.
- The court treated the complaint's factual allegations as true for the motion to dismiss and analyzed whether the speech addressed matters of public concern and whether municipal policy/custom was plausibly pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kimble's complaints about his son's bullying constitute First Amendment speech on a matter of public concern (freedom to petition / retaliation) | Kimble argues his advocacy about school bullying addresses a public concern and he was retaliated against for petitioning the district (filing Notice of Claim) | District argues Kimble's complaints were personal, made as a parent about his son's safety, not public-issue speech | Court: Speech was private parental advocacy, not public concern; First Amendment petition/retaliation claims dismissed |
| Whether Kimble stated a First Amendment intimate-association claim based on adverse action tied to his son | Kimble contends district punished him because of his intimate association with his son | District argues no independent intimate-association claim because Kimble alleges retaliation for his own speech, not for son's exercise of rights | Court: No plausible intimate-association claim; dismissal granted |
| Whether the complaint plausibly alleges municipal policy, custom, or a policymaker's decision to impose Monell liability | Kimble relies on alleged actions by district officials to show district caused violations | District contends plaintiff pleads no facts showing a formal policy, final policymaker decision, or widespread custom | Court: Even if constitutional violation existed, complaint fails to allege facts showing policy/custom or final policymaker action; Monell claim fails |
| Relief / procedural disposition | Kimble seeks damages and relief for First Amendment violations | District seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) (and alternatively joinder of Town and police dept.) | Court: Grants dismissal in full; judgment entered for defendant; joinder motion moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual matter plausibly entitling plaintiff to relief)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public-employee speech is protected only if it addresses a matter of public concern)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires a policy, custom, or official policymaker action)
- Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (municipal policy/custom must be the moving force behind constitutional violation)
- Adler v. Pataki, 185 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 1999) (discusses intimate-association theory where one spouse allegedly penalized for conduct of the other)
- Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2008) (retaliation claim requires speech addressing public concern; personal grievances are not protected)
- Ezekwo v. New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., 940 F.2d 775 (2d Cir. 1991) (distinguishing public-interest speech from private grievances)