Mica Spady v. Bethlehem Area School District
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15450
| 3rd Cir. | 2015Background
- Fifteen-year-old Juanya Spady participated in a mandatory two-week high-school P.E. swim class taught by Rodgers; Rodgers knew Juanya could not swim and required students to remain in the pool throughout class.
- During one class Juanya briefly submerged in the deep end, may have inhaled/swallowed water, reported chest pain, and sat on the bleachers after Rodgers told him to rest.
- Rodgers denied Juanya’s later request to remain out of the pool; Juanya stayed in the shallow end for the rest of class and left for his next class appearing well.
- Approximately 90 minutes after leaving the pool Juanya seized in class, was transported to the hospital, and died the same day; plaintiff’s expert opined death resulted from rare “secondary/dry drowning.”
- Spady sued Rodgers and the Bethlehem Area School District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting a Fourteenth Amendment state-created-danger due-process claim; the district court denied Rodgers’s qualified-immunity summary-judgment motion.
- The Third Circuit reversed, holding Rodgers entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established constitutional right required intervention for the risk of delayed dry drowning in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rodgers violated a student’s Fourteenth Amendment rights under the state-created-danger theory by failing to assess/intervene after brief submersion and complaint of chest pain | Spady: Rodgers’ conduct affirmatively increased risk of serious harm (secondary drowning) and showed deliberate indifference, satisfying Kneipp factors | Rodgers: conduct did not create or increase a known, foreseeable danger in a manner that violated substantive due process | The court did not decide the factual violation definitively; instead found no clearly established right in this context |
| Whether the right to affirmative intervention to prevent secondary/dry drowning was clearly established as of Dec. 2, 2010 | Spady: precedents (Kneipp, Sciotto) put school officials on notice that failure to protect from serious bodily risk can violate due process | Rodgers: no controlling or consensus authority made it obvious that ordinary swim-class supervision/decisions violated the Constitution | Held: No clearly established constitutional right to dry-drowning-intervention protocols in school swim classes; qualified immunity applies |
| Proper scope/procedure for qualified-immunity review on appeal from denial of summary judgment | Spady: district court erred by not addressing clearly-established prong after finding factual disputes | Rodgers: appellate review may address the clearly-established question as a pure legal issue | Held: Court may address the clearly-established prong first; it did so here and reversed denial of summary judgment |
| Applicability of analogical precedent (e.g., Ingraham, Stoneking, Sciotto) to create a clearly established right | Spady: cited cases recognizing students’ liberty interests from deliberate harm by school actors | Rodgers: cited differences — those cases involved intentional, egregious misconduct (corporal punishment, sexual assault), not ordinary athletic/supervisory risks | Held: Analogous precedents did not place the constitutional question beyond debate; they involved materially different, more egregious facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity requires law be beyond debate)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may decide either prong of qualified-immunity test first)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (Due Process Clause limits state action; no general affirmative duty to protect)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (articulated prior sequential qualified-immunity framework)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (rights must be defined with specificity for clearly-established inquiry)
- Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199 (3d Cir.) (state-created-danger test and factors)
- Curley v. Klem, 499 F.3d 199 (3d Cir.) (discussion of qualified-immunity analysis sequence)
- Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (school corporal punishment implicates liberty interests)
- Stoneking v. Bradford Area Sch. Dist., 882 F.2d 720 (3d Cir.) (student’s right to be free from teacher sexual assault)