Mathers Ex Rel. J.S.J. v. Wright, 636 F.3d 396

Mathers, mother and next friend of J.S.J., sues Wright, J.S.J.'s fifth grade teacher, alleging §1983 due process and equal protection violations, IDEA and First Amendment retaliation claims.
District court dismissed all but the equal protection claim; J.S.J. is educationally disabled and in Wright's class fall 2005.
Allegations include Wright refused to teach J.S.J., kept her from recess and drills, and forced her to crawl; Mathers alleged mistreatment due to disability and personal animus.
District court concluded the substantive due process claim was exhausted administratively under IDEA or failed as a matter of law; First Amendment claim dismissed; equal protection claim preserved; qualified immunity denial sustained.
Mathers appeals the dismissal of the due process and First Amendment claims; Wright cross-appeals on qualified immunity; the court sua sponte addresses finality and jurisdiction issues.
Court holds Mathers’ appeal lacks jurisdiction for lack of final judgment under 28 U.S.C. §1291; cross-appeal on qualified immunity is properly before the court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction and finality of Mathers’ appeal	Mathers seeks review of partially dismissed claims as final.	Order is not a final judgment as to all claims and Rule 54(b) or §1292(b) relief was not sought.	Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether Wright is entitled to qualified immunity on the §1983 claims	Mathers asserts Wright violated J.S.J.'s equal protection; immunity should not bar claim.	Wright contends conduct did not violate clearly established rights or fall outside professional discretion.	Wright not entitled to qualified immunity; equal protection violation sufficiently alleged.

Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 1996) (discrimination against student based on protected status without rational basis–no qualified immunity)
Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (class-of-one limits in public employment context; context matters)
Olech v. Vil. of Willowbrook, 528 U.S. 562 (U.S. 2000) (class-of-one equal protection requires arbitrary discrimination; animus may be relevant)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (clearly established rights; objective reasonableness standard for qualified immunity)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity as immunity from suit; requires showing rights were clearly established)
Reinholdson v. Minnesota, 346 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2003) (finality rule and appealability under Rule 54(b) and §1292(b))
Schatz Family ex rel. Schatz v. Gierer, 346 F.3d 1157 (8th Cir. 2003) (recognizes that interlocutory orders may be appealable under §1292(b))
Wilson v. Lawrence Cnty., 260 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2001) (establishes framework for clearly established rights in qualified immunity analysis)