NATOMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant and Appellant; I.O., a Minor, etc., Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
C093475
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
Filed 12/22/22
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION; (Super. Ct. No. 34-2019-8000-3194-CU-WM-GDS)
Teresa Stinson, Elizabeth Linton; Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin Law Corporation and Brendan J. Begley for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Michael L. Newman, Assistant Attorney General, Srividya Panchalam, Benjamin T. Conway, Carly J. Munson and Alexis M. Piazza, Deputy Attorneys General for the Attorney General of California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
C. Athena Roussos; Mary M. Sechser for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
Abigail Trillin, William S. Koski; Cynthia L. Rice, Reina Canale, Phyllis Shafton Katz; Nedra Shawler and Joyeta Basu for Youth & Education Law Project Stanford Law School, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., and Legal Services for Children as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
Alexandra Santa Ana, Mona Tawatao; Stephanie Horwitz, Michael Harris; Victor Leung; Linnea Nelson, Brandon Greene; Jonathan Markovitz and Bardis Vakili for Equal Justice Society, National Center for Youth Law, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California and ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
Mary Louise Frampton as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
Orbach Huff & Henderson and Sarah L.W. Sutherland for Plaintiff and Respondent.
California law requires school districts to expel a student in a limited set of circumstances, including, for instance, when the student furnishes a firearm, brandishes a knife at another person, or possesses an explosive. State law also grants school districts discretion to expel a student if they make two findings. First, the school district must find the student committed one of several statutorily enumerated acts, including, as relevant here, that the student possessed a dangerous object or an imitation firearm. Second, the school district must find either (1) “[o]ther means of correction are not feasible or have repeatedly failed to bring about proper conduct” or (2) “[d]ue to the nature of the act [or
In this case, Natomas Unified School District (the District) expelled a student, I.O., under its discretionary authority. At an expulsion hearing, the District heard evidence that I.O. brought two unloaded BB guns and a sealed bag of plastic BBs to his middle school, showed the guns to two friends, and fired one of the unloaded guns at the ground. The District also heard evidence that one of the friends who saw the guns feared testifying at the expulsion hearing because I.O. and his mother had asked the student‘s family to speak about I.O.‘s character. Based on this evidence, the District found I.O. unlawfully intimidated a witness. It further found he should be expelled. It reasoned that he committed an expellable offense in possessing the BB guns and posed a continuing danger to himself or others—a conclusion it reached after preventing I.O. from presenting character witnesses and excluding his evidence tending to show his classmates did not believe he posed a danger.
On I.O.‘s appeal from the trial court‘s judgment in the District‘s favor, we reverse for two reasons. First, we find the District‘s “continuing danger” finding was flawed. In the District‘s view, it could consider only I.O.‘s immediate misconduct when evaluating whether he posed a continuing danger to himself or others. But under the relevant standard, the District should have considered all the relevant facts, including evidence of I.O.‘s general character. Because the District misunderstood the appropriate inquiry, it improperly limited I.O.‘s ability to present a defense and excluded relevant evidence. Second, we find the District‘s witness intimidation finding was flawed. To support a claim of witness intimidation in a school disciplinary proceeding, the evidence must show the student either intended to prevent another student from testifying or to retaliate against another student for testifying. But no evidence in this case shows I.O. had any improper intent. For these reasons, we reverse.
I
Legal Background
Children in California have a right to a public school education. (Levi v. O‘Connell (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 700, 707; see also
Under these provisions, the expulsion process begins with a school‘s principal or a school district‘s superintendent recommending expulsion for one of the grounds listed in
Following a hearing on a student‘s proposed expulsion, the school district‘s governing board must decide whether to expel the student, with the required findings varying depending on the charges. (
Factual Background
A. I.O. Brings Two BB Guns to His School
I.O. formerly attended a middle school in the District. On two consecutive days in 2019, when he was 11 years old, he brought two plastic BB guns and a sealed bag of plastic BBs to his middle school. Both guns were unloaded and had orange tips. I.O. kept the guns in his backpack during school hours and showed them to two friends after school.
On the first day, I.O. told his friends he had a “gun” and revealed part of one of the BB guns while off school property. But after some giggling, he admitted the gun was fake and revealed its orange tip. According to his friends’ unsworn statements, the friends told him not to bring the guns again. The next day, I.O. brought the guns again and again showed them to his friends—this time on school property at one of the school‘s exits. I.O. then pulled one of the unloaded guns out of his bag, pointed it at the ground, and fired it. A parent noticed and walked over to I.O. The parent seized I.O.‘s bag, instructed him to wait, and directed another parent to get the principal, Amy Whitten.
Whitten arrived shortly afterward, finding I.O. crying. I.O. told her, “[T]his man scared me[.] I was just going to take it to the park[.] I want to be a police officer.” I.O. added he was sorry. Mia Emmitt, a retired police officer and substitute teacher, arrived soon after and walked with Whitten and I.O. to Whitten‘s office. After reaching Whitten‘s office, Emmitt and Whitten searched I.O.‘s bag and found two unloaded BB guns and a sealed pack of BBs. A school resource officer afterward conducted a threat assessment. He found two unloaded BB guns and no credible threat.
B. The District Expels I.O.
Whitten recommended that the District expel I.O., citing
Following Whitten‘s recommendation, I.O.‘s parents requested a hearing to determine whether expulsion would be appropriate. The District then scheduled a hearing before a three-member panel, consisting of two principals and a vice principal from other schools in the District. (See
To make its case in favor of expulsion, the school relied largely on unsworn written statements from two parents and two students. One parent said he saw a student with a gun, and another parent said she notified Whitten after hearing about the gun. The two students discussed seeing the BB guns. One said, I.O. “told me an[d] [redacted] that he had a gun. [Redacted] and I told him no[t] to bring it. He told us it was just a BB gun. The next day he took it out and [redacted] dad saw him.” The student added that the students were walking home the first day and at school the second day. The other student said, I.O. “blurted out that he had a gun on our way back home. I got suspi[ci]ous of him cause he was giggling so I asked him to show me the tip of the gun so I could make sure if it was a real gun. I wanted to see it because I knew the difference between a bee-bi gun and a real gun. After [I] said that[,] he told us it was a bee-bi gun.” The student added that the next day, I.O. “pulled out the gun and shot at the ground (the gun had no bee bi‘s in it).”
Whitten spoke next.2 Apart from reading an incident report and the witness statements, her statements largely touched on a new charge against I.O. that had yet to be mentioned to I.O. and his family—intimidating a witness in violation of
To establish the new charge, Whitten said she earlier spoke to a parent of one of the students who saw the BB guns. In Whitten‘s retelling, the parent said I.O.‘s family visited her home and asked her and her family to speak on I.O.‘s behalf at the hearing.
After hearing these statements, I.O.‘s mother tried to explain. She said, “I did not request the parent to speak on [I.O.‘s] behalf. I only asked for a letter of character reference because [I.O.] knows them” and “walks home with that family every day from school.” But a panel member found her explanation lacking. He said even if I.O.‘s mother had no intent to intimidate, “when someone now says that they‘re scared to come here and show their face or be involved in this, that is -- that is why this is -- this Ed Code is in place.” He then admonished her: “It‘s not appropriate to . . . intervene in a hearing like this or process like this by going to someone‘s house.”
Following the admonishment, Dr. Hamilton allowed I.O.‘s parents to present their son‘s side of the case. I.O.‘s parents intended to question one of his teachers at the hearing and, to that end, asked the school to bring the teacher to the hearing. I.O.‘s parents believed the teacher—who recently wrote that I.O. “is very patient and caring to his classmates,” “is a cheerful, pol[ite], and enthusiastic learner,” and “is a positive influence on the class and a joy to have in class“—would provide a fuller picture of I.O. because she interacted with I.O. on a daily basis. But the school declined to produce the teacher at the hearing. Dr. Hamilton attempted to provide an explanation on the record, but the record captured only this: “[W]e don‘t (unintelligible).” The District later
I.O.‘s parents also sought to present a family member, who was a parole officer, as a witness who could testify about the BB guns and I.O.‘s character. But a District director refused to allow the family member to testify because he did not witness the incident. I.O.‘s mother further discussed various student comments (20 in her count) telling him “we miss you,” “we want you back,” “everyone has your back and supports you,” and “everyone makes mistakes, you are not a bad person.” She also brought copies of the comments. But the panel never admitted these comments into the record. The District later indicated it found this type of evidence irrelevant because it “was not probative of the conduct in question or whether due to the nature of it, [I.O.‘s] presence at school caused [a]n ongoing danger.”
With limited witness options, I.O.‘s parents relied principally on one witness: I.O. I.O. acknowledged he took the BB guns to school on two days, took a gun out of his backpack on one occasion, and shot the gun at the ground. He said he wanted to “show my friends” and to do “target practice after school.” He added that he had just received the BB guns and had never before shot a BB gun, apart from the one instance when he fired the unloaded gun at the ground. He acknowledged it was wrong to bring the BB guns to school.
Following the hearing, the panel recommended that I.O. receive a suspended expulsion. It cited the same statutes that Whitten had cited in her expulsion
The District‘s governing board later adopted the panel‘s findings and the panel‘s suspended expulsion order without modification.
C. The County Board‘s Decision
I.O. appealed the District‘s decision to the Sacramento County Board of Education (the County Board), which, per
After holding a hearing, the County Board reversed the District‘s decision. It found the District deprived I.O. of a fair hearing and prejudicially abused its discretion for several reasons. First, it found insufficient evidence supported the District‘s findings that I.O. possessed a “firearm,” a “dangerous object,” and an “imitation firearm.” Second, it found insufficient evidence supported the District‘s finding that I.O. posed a continuing danger and further found the District improperly excluded evidence—including his teacher‘s testimony and his classmates’ comments—that could have been
The County Board ordered the District‘s expulsion decision expunged from I.O.‘s school records and deemed the expulsion not to have occurred.
D. The Trial Court‘s Decision
Following the County Board‘s decision, the District filed a combined petition for writ of administrative mandamus and civil complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief with the trial court. The District asked the trial court to order the County Board to set aside its decision, to declare that the County Board acted in excess of its authority, and to enjoin the County Board. It also sought an immediate stay of the County Board‘s decision to prevent I.O. from enrolling at his middle school before a decision on the merits.
A trial judge with Sacramento County Superior Court denied the District‘s request for an immediate stay. The court explained, based on the limited evidence before it, that it “disagree[d] with the district that the board . . . appears to have exceeded its authority in overturning the decision. I don‘t believe they‘ve exceeded their authority.” The court added that “none of the evidence that the school district has presented . . . indicates that the student poses any continuing danger to school safety.”
Following the adverse ruling, the District sought an order assigning the case to a judge from a different court. It reasoned that because the suit involved two adversarial
After the reassignment, the trial court found the County Board‘s decision should be set aside, finding none of the County Board‘s stated reasons for its decision persuasive. The court afterward ordered the County Board to set aside its decision and, after finding the District‘s suit enforced an important public policy, awarded the District over $150,000 in attorney fees.
I.O. and the County Board appealed.4
DISCUSSION
I
Timeliness of Appeal
We start with the District‘s contention that I.O. and the County Board filed their appeals too late. Although the trial court purported to enter judgment on January 4, 2021, in a document titled “Judgment Granting Peremptory Writ of Mandate” (the Judgment), the District contends the court actually entered judgment on October 2, 2020, in a document titled “Ruling on Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus” (the Ruling). It then contends I.O.‘s and the County Board‘s appeals are untimely because they filed their appeals on January 26, 2021, and March 2, 2021, respectively, more than 60 days after the trial court clerk served them with the Ruling on October 2, 2020. We disagree.
The normal time for filing an appeal is the earlier of “(A) 60 days after the superior court clerk serves on the party filing the notice of appeal a document entitled
But in making this argument, the District both misstates the facts concerning the service of the Ruling and misunderstands the law on judgments. We start with the facts. Although the District claims the Ruling was served on all parties, the proof of service shows it was served on only two parties: the County Board and the District. I.O. was never served. So even if we accept that the Ruling was the court‘s judgment, I.O.‘s appeal nonetheless remains timely. That is because a party, having never been served with the judgment, has 180 days after entry of judgment to file an appeal (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)); and in this case, I.O. filed his appeal on March 2, 2021, less than 180 days after entry of the Ruling.
We turn next to the law. “An application for a writ of administrative mandamus,” like the one the District filed here, “is a ‘special proceeding of a civil nature.’ ” (Dhillon v. John Muir Health (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1109, 1115 (Dhillon).) A “judgment” in these types of proceedings “is the final determination of the rights of the parties therein” (
Considering these circumstances, we cannot say the October 2020 Ruling was “the final determination of the rights of the parties” (
The District‘s counterarguments do not persuade us to find otherwise. It first contends “an order granting a petition for an extraordinary writ constitutes a final judgment for purposes of an appeal, even if the order is not accompanied by a separate formal judgment.” We acknowledge that several courts have stated as much. (See Public Defenders’ Organization v. County of Riverside (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409;
The District next suggests the trial court clerk evinced its own understanding that the Ruling served as the judgment. That is so, it reasons, because “[w]hen the Court filed its October 2, 2020, Ruling . . ., the Court [clerk] immediately entered judgment on the same day in the court record, as reflected in the Court‘s Register of Actions.” (Italics omitted.) But the register of actions does not refer to any judgment until January 4, 2021, when the court entered the January 2021 Judgment. That indicates that the court clerk understood the January 2021 Judgment, and not the earlier Ruling, to be the judgment. In any event, the substance and effect of a decision, not the clerk‘s offered label in the register of actions, is the controlling consideration. (See Dhillon, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1115 [” ’ “It is not the form of the decree but the substance and effect of the adjudication which is determinative” ’ “].)
Lastly, the District contends the Ruling granted it the exact relief it sought and left no issue open for future consideration except the fact of compliance or noncompliance. It then characterizes the January 2021 Judgment as merely “redundant” of the earlier
II
The District‘s “Continuing Danger” Finding
Satisfied we have jurisdiction, we turn to I.O.‘s and the County Board‘s contention that the District misinterpreted
Under
Our focus here is on the “continuing danger” provision, which the District relied on for its secondary finding. According to the District, the statutory text shows it could consider only the nature of I.O.‘s misconduct when evaluating whether he posed a continuing danger. That is so, it argues, because the relevant inquiry under
But according to I.O., the County Board, and the Attorney General (as amicus curiae), a school district must consider a student‘s circumstances more broadly before finding the student poses a continuing danger. I.O. reasons that “[e]ven considering only ‘the nature of the act’ under
Those principles in mind, we turn first to
We also find this interpretation compatible with the whole of the statute, even if it results in the “[d]ue to the nature of the act [or violation]” language playing a different role than the District prefers. Like the District, we agree this language is important. It ensures, for instance, that a school board does not find a student poses a continuing danger for reasons having no meaningful connection to “the nature of the act [or violation]” that led to the recommended expulsion. But we find it does not, as the District believes, bar a school district from considering matters apart from the nature of the act or violation when evaluating whether a student poses a continuing danger. Again,
Review of the overall statutory scheme reinforces our reading of
All these other provisions require a school district to evaluate whether a student poses a danger based on all the relevant facts without any explicit limit on the scope of the district‘s inquiry. And if the Legislature intended a broad inquiry to evaluate dangerousness in these provisions, we find it odd to conclude that it intended a far narrower inquiry in
We further find this construction consistent with the Legislature‘s general intent in
For all these reasons—
Here, in declining to consider all the relevant facts, the District misconstrued
III
The District‘s Witness Intimidation Finding
Lastly, we consider I.O.‘s and the County Board‘s challenge to the District‘s finding that I.O. intimidated a witness in violation of
Here, in finding I.O. violated this provision, the District relied on two written statements—one from a fellow student and another from the student‘s mother. Both the student and his mother sought to avoid testifying at I.O.‘s hearing and, after receiving a pre-filled form, checked a box saying they feared retaliation. The student wrote: I.O. “and his mom came to my house and started talking to my mom about the statement.”
We conclude the District‘s finding lacks evidentiary support. Again,
The District, believing the evidence sufficient, counters that it is enough that I.O.‘s friend and his mother “felt intimidated by [I.O.‘s] mother‘s actions to the point that they were fearful of the consequences of testifying at the hearing.” (Italics omitted.) But the District misconstrues
The judgment and the postjudgment order granting attorney fees are reversed. I.O. and the County Board are entitled to recover their costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)
/s/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.
We concur:
/s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.
/s/
HOCH, J.