Melissa Hearring v. Karen Sliwowski, 806 F.3d 864

Background

In 2009, first-grader B.H. complained of genital pain; school nurse Karen Sliwowski visually inspected B.H.’s genitals in a faculty restroom without parental consent.
B.H.’s mother, Melissa Hearring, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking $1.75 million, alleging Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process/invasion-of-privacy claim against the school district for failure to train.
The district court initially denied the nurse’s qualified immunity motion; this court later reversed qualified immunity for the nurse on appeal.
At trial the jury found that Sliwowski did not violate B.H.’s Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights; Hearring did not appeal the denial of a new trial.
Despite the jury verdict and no prior request for equitable relief, the district court sua sponte entered an injunction requiring the school district to train employees on constitutional limits; the court then set aside an earlier taxation of costs in light of that injunction.
The Sixth Circuit reversed the injunction, held Hearring lacked standing to seek such relief, and reinstated the award of costs to the school district.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court could enter a permanent injunction sua sponte when plaintiff never sought injunctive relief before trial	Hearring later moved to amend complaint post-verdict and argued injunction was appropriate to protect children	Metro argued no injunctive relief was pleaded, litigated, or noticed and that sua sponte relief was improper	Court: Injunction improper; plaintiff never sought it pre-trial and district court erred in issuing unrequested permanent relief
Whether the jury’s verdict finding no constitutional violation permits an injunction requiring training	Hearring contended training was necessary to protect students generally	Metro argued the jury’s finding that no constitutional violation occurred eliminated any basis to enjoin future conduct	Court: Jury’s verdict negated the factual predicate; with no violation, there was no ongoing unconstitutional conduct to enjoin
Whether Hearring (and B.H.) had standing to seek prospective injunctive relief	Hearring asserted future harm risk and public-interest need justified prospective relief	Metro relied on Lyons and Summers to argue no concrete, imminent threat of repeat injury existed	Court: No standing — speculative risk, not an actual and imminent injury, so injunction could not be upheld
Whether the district court correctly set aside the taxed costs after entering the injunction	Hearring argued the injunction made her a prevailing party and justified vacating costs	Metro argued it was the prevailing party at trial and entitled to taxed costs because the injunction was improper	Court: Because injunction vacated, Hearring is not prevailing party; costs reinstated to Metro

Key Cases Cited

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (plaintiff must show real and immediate threat of future injury to obtain injunction)
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (standing must be established for each form of relief sought)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for injunctive relief require showing of likely irreparable harm and merits)
Taylor v. Michigan Dep’t of Natural Res., 502 F.3d 452 (6th Cir. 2007) (no injunction when no constitutional violation established)
Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350 (2011) (Monell failure-to-train deliberate-indifference standard)
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires unconstitutional policy or custom causing deprivation)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (2014) (standing principles and limitations on judicial review)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (Article III demands case-or-controversy for federal court action)
Balsley v. LFP, Inc., 691 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2012) (prevailling-party analysis for costs)
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974) (notice requirements and adversarial process for injunctions)