Robert E. FAY, Theresa M. Fay, and Thomas R. Fay, by their
natural parent and next friend, Robert E. Fay,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees,
v.
SOUTH COLONIE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Gordon M. Ambach, as
he is the Commissioner of Education, State of New York; and
Thomas P. Mitchell, as he is the Superintendent of Schools,
South Colonie Central School District, Defendants-Appellees,
South Colonie Central School District and Thomas P.
Mitchell, Defendants- Appellees, Cross-Appellants.
Nos. 951, 1056, Docket 85-9009, 85-9033.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Argued April 2, 1986.
Decided Sept. 24, 1986.
Jerome Aaron, Somerville, Mass., for plaintiffs-appellants, cross-appellees.
Paul J. Laudato, Albany, N.Y. (Tabner and Laudato, Albany, N.Y., of counsel), for defendants-appellees, cross-appellants South Colonie Cent. School Dist. and Thomas P. Mitchell.
Calvin M. Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of N.Y., Albany, N.Y. (Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. of the State of N.Y., Robert Hermann, Sol. Gen., William J. Kogan, Asst. Sol. Gen., State of N.Y., Albany, N.Y., of counsel), for defendant-appellee Gordon M. Ambach.
Before OAKES, MESKILL and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges.
MESKILL, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Miner, J. The plaintiffs below were Robert E. Fay (Fay) and his children, Theresa M. Fay and Thomas R. Fay. The defendants were the South Colonie Central School District, its superintendent (hereinafter the district and its superintendent are collectively described as "the school district") and the New York Commissioner of Education. The district court partially granted the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, holding the school district liable under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1982) for denying Robert Fay access to his children's education records, see 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g(a)(1)(A) (1982), awarding nominal damages for the denial of access to the records and granting injunctive relief on a pendent state law claim for violation of his rights as a parent with joint legal custody of his children. The court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims against Commissioner Ambach. It also dismissed Fay's claim under section 1983 that the school district violated Fay's due process right to control the upbringing of his children and his right to equal protection of the laws.
For reasons set out below, we conclude that Fay's claim for compensatory damages is barred neither by res judicata nor by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the dismissal of the claims against Commissioner Ambach. We also affirm the dismissal of the constitutional claims against the school district, but do so for different reasons than those relied on by the district court. We affirm the portion of the judgment holding the school district liable for denying Robert Fay access to his children's education records but vacate the award of nominal damages for this violation of Robert Fay's federal statutory rights and remand for further proceedings on the issue of damages. Finally, we hold that the district court abused its discretion when it entertained the pendent state law claim and we dismiss the claim.
BACKGROUND
This suit involves an attempt to have the federal courts resolve a dispute that could be more appropriately resolved either by the state courts or by mediation.
Under a separation agreement Fay and his ex-wife have joint legal custody of their two children. The children live with Fay during the summer and live with their mother during the school year. The separation agreement further provides that the ex-wife
must ... consult with [Fay] concerning ... schooling, relevant to which school [the children] should attend, whether public or private, matters concerning any special education courses which the children may pursue or desire to pursue and further, the [ex-]wife is to provide [Fay] with report cards of the children or photostatic copies thereof....
App. at 179. Fay alleges that his ex-wife has failed to comply fully with this provision.
Dissatisfied with the operation of this aspect of the separation agreement, Fay tried to get information regarding his children's activities and progress directly from the children's schools. In December 1980 Fay sent a letter to the superintendent of the school district demanding such information. Although Fay's original demand was inchoate, it later became clear that he sought information ranging from standardized test results and accident reports to notices about classroom parties and cafeteria menus. Instead of seeking to accommodate any of the demands, the superintendent responded that the school would "provide information to any person or organization whom the courts decide have a legal right to it." App. at 302-A-18.
More letters were exchanged between Fay and the superintendent and in April 1981 the United States Department of Education advised the superintendent of Fay's rights under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g (1982) (FERPA). Thereafter, the school district began mailing copies of the Fay children's education records to Fay. The school district continued to refuse to mail to Fay duplicates of all school-related notices mailed to his ex-wife or carried home by his children.
In May or June 1981 Fay initiated an appeal of this continuing refusal to the New York Commissioner of Education, Gordon Ambach. See N.Y. Educ. Law Sec. 310 (McKinney 1969 & Supp.1986). In October 1981 Commissioner Ambach invoked a regulation promulgated under his statutory authority "[t]o regulate the practice" in such appeals, N.Y.Educ.Law Sec. 311, subd. 1 (McKinney 1969), which required appeals to be brought within thirty days of "the performance of the act complained of." N.Y.Admin.Code tit. 8, Sec. 275.16 (1986). The Commissioner dismissed Fay's appeal, asserting that the appeal was brought "long after the prescribed time," App. at 155, and refused to excuse the failure to bring a timely appeal because Fay had failed to explain the reasons for the delay. See N.Y.Admin.Code tit. 8, Sec. 275.16 ("The commissioner ... may excuse a failure to commence an appeal within the time specified for good cause shown."). The Commissioner also noted that Fay's ex-wife was a necessary party who should have been joined in the appeal.
The Commissioner did not confine his observations to procedural matters, however. He also stated that Fay's request to receive copies of all communications sent by the school to his ex-wife would place "an unreasonable burden" on the school district. App. at 156.
Fay brought an Article 78 proceeding to annul Commissioner Ambach's ruling. See N.Y.Civ.Prac.Law Secs. 7801-06 (McKinney 1981 & Supp.1986). The New York Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding. The court noted in a brief memorandum decision that it could "not substitute its judgment [for that of the Commissioner] unless it is found that the determination reviewed is unlawful, arbitrary, unreasonable or ... constitutes an abuse of discretion." App. at 161. After citing two New York cases as authority for this standard of review, the court ambiguously concluded: "It is sufficient to here note that the determination of the Commissioner is clearly supported by [a] rational basis." Id. The opinion did not state whether the "rational basis" referred to was the procedural aspect or the substantive aspect of the Commissioner's ruling. In January 1983 the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court dismissed Fay's appeal.
In August 1983 Fay brought this action for damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and his children. The complaint alleged that the school district, the superintendent (in his official capacity) and Commissioner Ambach violated Fay's statutory rights under FERPA, his constitutional right to control the upbringing of his children and his constitutional right to equal protection of the laws. The complaint was later amended to include a pendent state law claim against the school district for violating Fay's rights as a joint custodial parent. The complaint did not state what legal theory the Fay children relied on.
When discovery was complete the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. After receiving briefs and hearing argument on the motions, the district court issued a thorough memorandum decision and order dismissing Fay's constitutional claims and granting partial summary judgment to Fay on the other two claims. The court rejected the defendants' argument that this section 1983 action was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, reasoning that there had been no adjudication in a state tribunal on the merits of Fay's claims. The court reasoned that Commissioner Ambach relied solely on procedural grounds to dismiss Fay's claims and that the New York Supreme Court simply reaffirmed that procedural dismissal in the Article 78 proceeding.
Treating Commissioner Ambach's brief discussion of the merits of Fay's administrative appeal as "the equivalent of obiter dicta," App. at 348, the court concluded that the Commissioner's procedural dismissal had not established a substantive state policy on the rights of joint custodial parents to receive school notices. In the absence of such a policy, which the court saw as the sole basis for Fay's claims against the Commissioner, the court dismissed those claims.
Turning to Fay's due process claim, the district court noted that a parent has a fundamental interest in his child's upbringing. See Stanley v. Illinois,
The district court summarized Fay's equal protection claim as being that the school district's policy " 'discriminate[s] against men, denying them the same information which is sent to women.' " App. at 350 (quoting Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment at 18). The district court found no facts in the record to support a finding of discriminatory intent and dismissed the claim.
The school district has argued both here and below that FERPA does not give rise to a private cause of action either by itself or under section 1983. The district court rejected the school district's argument. Although FERPA does not create a separate cause of action, the court held that there is a private cause of action under section 1983 for violations of FERPA. The court found that the school district "tacitly conceded" that it had refused to allow Fay access to his children's education records from May 1980 until April 1981. App. at 354. The court then held that this refusal established liability under section 1983, but awarded only nominal damages, finding that "plaintiff has failed to establish any compensable injury from this eleven-month denial of access." App. at 358.
The district court granted substantial relief on Fay's pendent state law claim that his parental joint custody rights had been violated. Judge Miner noted that "[u]nder New York law, joint custody includes 'giving to both parents an equal voice in the children's education, upbringing, and general welfare.' " Id. at 360 (quoting Odette R. v. Douglas R.,
Fay appeals from the dismissal of the claims against Commissioner Ambach, the dismissal of his claim for the violation of his right to control his children's upbringing and the award of nominal damages. The school district cross-appeals, renewing its arguments that this action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment and by the doctrines of res judicata and claim preclusion, that there is no private cause of action under section 1983 for violations of FERPA and that it is not bound by the separation agreement between Fay and his ex-wife. We shall discuss the Eleventh Amendment first.
DISCUSSION
A. Eleventh Amendment
The school district's claim that this action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment is without merit.
The Eleventh Amendment affirms the fundamental principle that sovereign immunity limits the grant of judicial authority contained in Article III of the Constitution. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman,
The school district argues that the State of New York is the real party in interest in this case because the school district "is a branch of state government charged by the state with the local administration of its educational system." Br. of Appellees-Cross-Appellants South Colonie Central School District and Thomas P. Mitchell at 6. As we explain more fully below, however, the school district has not established that payment of money damages to Fay will come directly from the state treasury or demonstrated why it should be viewed as an alter ego for the state. See Forman v. Community Services, Inc.,
Inferior government bodies do not share in Eleventh Amendment immunity simply because they receive state funds. Turano v. Board of Education,
State action for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment is not equal to being the state for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. Cf. Edelman,
B. Claim and Issue Preclusion
Under the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a "final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action." Federated Department Stores v. Moitie,
Federal courts, in adjudicating suits under section 1983, must give the same preclusive effect to a state court's judgment as courts of that same state would give the judgment. Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education,
New York courts employ transactional analysis to determine whether a claim is precluded by a previous final judgment, viewing a claim or cause of action as coterminous with the transaction regardless of the number of substantive theories or variant forms of relief available to the plaintiff. Smith v. Russell Sage College,
The same foundation facts that served as a predicate for the administrative appeal and the Article 78 proceeding serve as a predicate for this case. The question, therefore, is whether either the Commissioner's determination of Fay's administrative appeal or the disposition of the Article 78 proceeding bars this action.
1. Commissioner's Decision
New York courts give limited preclusive effect to prior administrative determinations. Ryan v. New York Telephone Co.,
An essential predicate to giving a prior judgment preclusive effect is that the prior judgment be "on the merits." See Gengarelly v. Glen Cove Urban Renewal Agency,
Our conclusion that the dismissal of Fay's administrative appeal was not "on the merits" is further supported by the policies that underlie the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion. As the New York Court of Appeals has noted, "In properly seeking to deny a litigant two 'days in court', courts must be careful not to deprive him of one." Reilly,
2. Article 78 Proceedings
The school district argues that the Article 78 proceedings should bar this action, asserting that Fay litigated his substantive due process claims in those proceedings. Even if Fay's claims for injunctive relief under section 1983 were not litigated in the Article 78 proceedings, they could have been litigated there. See, e.g., Gargiul v. Tompkins,
Res judicata does not bar a claim based on the same cause of action, however, if the forum that rendered the prior judgment "did not have the power to award the full measure of relief sought" in a subsequent action. Davidson v. Capuano,
The school district and the Commissioner would also have us apply the principle of collateral estoppel to preclude Fay and his children from relitigating the issues raised in the Article 78 proceeding. New York courts treat collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, as "a component of the broader doctrine of res judicata" which permits "the determination of an issue of fact or law raised in a subsequent action by reference to a previous judgment on a different cause of action in which the same issue was necessarily raised and decided." Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Lopez,
Commissioner Ambach dismissed Fay's administrative appeal on procedural grounds. In affirming that dismissal, the memorandum decision in the Article 78 proceeding commented that Commissioner Ambach's determination was "clearly supported by [a] rational basis." App. at 161. It is impossible to tell from this ambiguous comment whether the court was referring to the procedural basis for the Commissioner's decision or to the Commissioner's additional remarks on the merits of Fay's claim. The doctrine of collateral estoppel is, therefore, also inapplicable to this case because the memorandum of the Article 78 court was so vague as to render it impossible to conclude that a resolution of the substantive issues raised by Fay was necessary to reach the decision to dismiss the case. See Gramatan,
C. Liability of Commissioner Ambach
The district court dismissed Fay's section 1983 claims against Commissioner Ambach because the Commissioner's decision on Fay's administrative appeal "did not establish a statewide policy of denying" divorced parents' requests for education records and school notices. App. at 348. Fay argues that the decision implicitly established such a policy and that summary judgment was thus improperly granted to the Commissioner.
Even if we were to accept Fay's argument, cf. Lugar v. Edmundson Oil Co.,
It is true that state actors are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment against suits for prospective injunctive relief against violations of constitutional rights. See Dwyer v. Regan,
D. Constitutional Claims
Fay has abandoned his claim that the school district's refusal to mail notices to him violates his right to the equal protection of the laws. He does assert, however, that the refusal violates a due process right to control his children's upbringing.
Recognizing the existence of such a right is easier than determining its scope. That scope would depend on the extent to which the school district is constitutionally obligated to remove obstacles that prevent Fay from fully exercising his asserted right to control the upbringing of his children. Compare Stanley v. Illinois,
We need not resolve the difficult constitutional questions that Fay's appeal presents. See Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority,
Judge Friendly, writing in Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon v. Rosenstiel,
Judge Friendly also observed in Phillips, Nizer that federal courts have enforced alimony awards and have determined whether a state court must give full faith and credit to a sister state's prior divorce decree. Id. at 514; cf. Spindel v. Spindel,
Fay's claims in this case do not fit within the traditional matrimonial exception. Even so, we believe that the claims' proximity to the exception is a "particularly strong" reason for abstaining in this case. See id. In effect, Fay asks us to relieve his ex-wife of duties imposed by their separation agreement, duties which the New York courts have a continuing power to modify or enforce. Furthermore, in formulating effective relief on Fay's claims, a federal court would be obliged to declare which notices and memoranda are essential to Fay's exercise of the right to control his children's educational destiny. In doing so the court would need to consider the best interests of the Fay children and the allocation of burdens among Fay, the school district and Fay's ex-wife. Continuing oversight of an injunction might obligate the federal court to interpret the joint custody provisions of the separation agreement to determine such matters as whether Fay or his ex-wife has the exclusive authority to sign waivers and permission slips.
The New York courts have an especially strong interest and a well-developed competence to adjudicate these matters. Id; see 13B C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 3609 at 461 (1984). They would have ample jurisdiction to do so in any action to enforce or modify the divorce decree. Yet, Fay has made no direct effort to vindicate his rights under the separation agreement in the New York courts.
Our abstention in this case is not precluded by our recent decision in Giardina v. Fontana,
By contrast, in this case, formulating an order for relief would require consideration of the Fay children's "best interests" and of the extent, if any, to which Fay's ex-wife would, in effect, be relieved of her duties under the separation agreement. New York family law would be controlling on these two issues. That law may not be "obscure," but it is a body of law with which "federal judges are more than ordinarily unfamiliar," because of its proximity to the matrimonial exception. Phillips, Nizer,
We, therefore, dismiss those parts of Fay's complaint that seek compensatory relief under section 1983 for the alleged burdening of his due process right to control the upbringing of his children. We note, however, that Fay will have an opportunity on remand of his FERPA claim to prove damages similar to those sought under his due process claim. We now turn to the FERPA claim.
E. The FERPA Claim
The school district argues that the district court erred in concluding that Fay could assert a cause of action under section 1983 for the school district's violation of FERPA between May 1980 and April 1981. This argument is without merit. Fay claims that the district court erred in awarding him only nominal damages for the FERPA violation. This claim has merit and we remand this portion of the complaint for further proceedings.
FERPA denies federal funds to a school "which has a policy of denying ... the parents of students who are or have been in attendance at [the school] the right to inspect and review the education records of their children." 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g(a)(1)(A) (1982). See also id. at Sec. (a)(4)(A) & (B) (definition of education records). The statute requires that the "Secretary ... take appropriate actions to enforce" its provisions. Id. at Sec. 1232g(f).
FERPA itself does not give rise to a private cause of action. Girardier v. Webster College,
The school district "tacitly conceded liability" for violating FERPA for the eleven months between May 1980 and April 1981, App. at 358, and it does not contest the entry of summary judgment on the issue of liability. Fay argues, however, that the district court erred in awarding him only nominal damages.
Where the amount of damages is not in dispute, a court may award damages on summary judgment. See, e.g., Sygma Photo News v. High Society Magazine,
A section 1983 violation is a species of tort liability in which the level of damages is determined by applying principles derived from tort law. Memphis Community School District v. Stachura, --- U.S. ----,
F. Pendent State Law Claim
The decision to exercise pendent jurisdiction is vested in the sound discretion of the district court. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs,
Fay's pendent claim asserted that his rights as a joint custodial parent under New York law had been violated. In order to decide that claim, Judge Miner relied on an opinion which he authored while he was a justice of the New York Supreme Court. We cannot deny that his reading of New York law was "sure-footed." The presence of unresolved questions under New York family law regarding the rights of fathers with joint legal custody of their children, however, should have alerted him to the fact that he need not, and therefore should not, decide the pendent claim. See Pullman,
CONCLUSION
Neither the Eleventh Amendment nor the doctrine of res judicata bars the claim for compensatory damages. Fay's constitutional claims and pendent state law claim are dismissed. His FERPA claim is remanded for further proceedings to determine the amount of compensatory damages. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Notes
Fay's failure to litigate his section 1983 claims for injunctive relief in the Article 78 proceeding would not prevent his children from pursuing their separate claims for injunctive relief in a section 1983 action in federal court because they were not parties or privies to the Article 78 proceeding. See Gilberg v. Barbieri,
We cite Pullman only in connection with the broad proposition above quoted. We do not, of course, rely on Pullman as the basis for our decision to abstain in this case