Zell v. Ricci
957 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2020Background
- Oct. 16, 2015 at Chariho High School: student Rachel McGinley struck then-junior Kelsey Zell in the head with a cell phone during Spirit Week; Zell later was diagnosed with a concussion.
- School officials suspended both students for "fighting/instigating a fight." Zell and her parents appealed through the superintendent, the local School Committee, RIDE (state education agency), and the Council; each body upheld the suspension and issued relatively short written decisions.
- Zell filed a federal suit with federal (procedural due process and equal protection under § 1983) and multiple state-law claims (including negligence and negligent training/supervision). Defendants moved to dismiss; three individual school officials also moved for Rule 11 sanctions.
- The district court dismissed Counts I (procedural due process) and II (equal protection) for failure to state a claim, exercised supplemental jurisdiction over and dismissed state-law negligence and negligent training/supervision claims (except claims against McGinley), denied leave to amend as futile, and denied sanctions.
- On appeal Zell challenges the dismissal of Counts I and II and the dismissed state-law negligence claims (Counts VIII and IX); three school officials cross-appeal the denial of sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process (Count I) — adequacy of RIDE/Council written decisions | Zell: RIDE and Council decisions were too brief, omitted/ignored evidence, and failed to explain reasons — depriving her of constitutionally adequate process. | RIDE/Council: Zell received at least the informal procedures due for short suspensions; written orders need not be exhaustive under Goldberg/Goss. | Affirmed dismissal. Short, reasoned administrative decisions satisfied due process for <10-day suspension. |
| Equal protection (Count II) — class-of-one theory | Zell: She was singled out and received disparate treatment (e.g., withheld evidence, misrepresentations) compared to similarly situated disciplined students who received fair hearings. | School defendants: Comparators not adequately alleged; theory was vague/waived and lacks nonconclusory facts showing bad-faith or absence of rational basis. | Affirmed dismissal. Complaint failed to plead sufficiently similar comparators or malicious/bad-faith intent. |
| Supplemental jurisdiction & state-law negligence (Counts VIII, IX) | Zell: District court should adjudicate state claims she pleaded; merits dismissal of negligence claims was erroneous. | Defendants: If federal claims dismissed, district court can decline pendent jurisdiction; state-law claims lack adequate pleading (respondeat superior misuse for negligent supervision). | Mixed: Affirmed dismissal of negligent training/supervision (Count IX) as pleaded (respondeat superior misused). Vacated dismissal of general negligence (Count VIII) and remanded for dismissal without prejudice to allow state-court resolution (comity/judicial economy concerns). |
| Rule 11 sanctions (cross-appeal) | N/A (Zell seeks to avoid sanctions). | Officials: Certain conspiracy and factual allegations were frivolous and warrant sanctions. | Affirmed denial of sanctions. District court did not abuse its discretion; filings not "so plainly unmeritorious" to justify sanctions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires plausible, nonconclusory factual allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim; merely conceivable is insufficient)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (minimal due process required for short student suspensions: notice and opportunity to explain)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (adjudicator should state reasons and evidence relied on, though formal findings not required)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class-of-one equal protection framework)
- Gorman v. Univ. of Rhode Island, 837 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1988) (student-discipline due-process framework: informal give-and-take suffices)
- Gianfrancesco v. Town of Wrentham, 712 F.3d 634 (1st Cir. 2013) (plaintiff must show comparators similarly situated in all relevant respects for class-of-one claim)
- Buchanan v. Maine, 469 F.3d 158 (1st Cir. 2006) (class-of-one requires malicious or bad-faith intent to injure)
- Desjardins v. Willard, 777 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2015) (when federal claims are dismissed, courts should usually decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims)
- Wilber v. Curtis, 872 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2017) (abuse of discretion to retain pendent state-law claims after all federal claims dismissed unless factors favor retention)
- Robinson v. Town of Marshfield, 950 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2020) (directed dismissal without prejudice of state claims when federal claims resolved and comity favors state adjudication)
- Eldridge v. Gordon Bros. Grp., L.L.C., 863 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2017) (Rule 11 sanctions require claims to be so plainly unmeritorious as to warrant sanctions)