Milward v. Shaheen, 148 F. Supp. 3d 1341

Plaintiffs are former Valencia College Medical Diagnostic Sonography Program students alleging invasive transvaginal ultrasounds on themselves for learning purposes in a clinical setting.
Defendants include Valencia College and several of its employees, named as individual defendants, allegedly enforcing the practice despite claims of voluntariness.
Plaintiffs claim the program coerced participation and threatened academic or employment consequences to compel participation.
Plaintiffs assert violations of First and Fourth Amendment rights and a federal civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court granted Valencia College’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice; the related summary-judgment alternative was denied as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eleventh Amendment immunity	Ex parte Young allows prospective relief against state actors.	Valencia College as an arm of the state is immune from § 1983 damages.	Eleventh Amendment bars the claim against Valencia College; Ex parte Young does not apply.
First Amendment retaliation	Plaintiffs complained about probes; protected speech connected to program concerns.	Complaints were not protected speech under Hazelwood; no adverse action tied to protected speech.	Plaintiffs' First Amendment claims failed; teachers’ curricular decisions fall outside protected speech; qualified immunity applies; Count I dismissed.
Fourth Amendment violation	Practice of vaginal probing implicates a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable government action.	Programmatic educational practice does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search or seizure imposing governmental benefit.	No Fourth Amendment violation; qualified immunity to individual defendants; Count II dismissed.
Civil conspiracy under § 1983	Defendants conspired to infringe rights.	Conspiracy claim requires a constitutional violation by the defendants.	Conspiracy claim fails because there is no underlying constitutional violation; claim dismissed.

Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (U.S. 1988) (school curricula may limit student speech in curricular contexts)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requires plausible grounds for relief)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard applies to complaint allegations)
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1981) (elements for § 1983 claim; pleading standards)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908) (allows prospective relief against state officers; not applicable to state entities)
Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1979) (Eleventh Amendment immunity and state-subsidiary immunity discussed)
Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003) (Eleventh Circuit on immunity and state actors)
Williams v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Edison Cmty. Coll., 421 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2005) (community colleges as arms of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes)
Rowe v. Fort Lauderdale, 279 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2002) (conspiracy claim requires underlying constitutional violation)
Maddox v. Stephens, 727 F.3d 1109 (11th Cir. 2013) (three ways to establish clearly established rights for qualified immunity)
Heenan v. Rhodes, 757 F.Supp.2d 1229 (M.D. Ala. 2010) (speech and curricular context analyses in education settings)