Steve Lucsik v. Board of Education of the Brunswick City School District
621 F.2d 841
6th Cir.
1980
Check Treatment

*1 subject forces are not to reasonable control. al., et LUCSIK Steve 543-545], [Id. Plaintiffs-Appellants, evidence Returning to the uncontroverted requirement particle ve- physical BOARD OF EDUCATION OF any explo- coal dust requisite as a locity CITY BRUNSWICK SCHOOL DIS- sion, capable initiating source energy TRICT, Defendants-Appellees. fifty hundred and velocity an air of one among particles needs (150') per feet second No. 79-3243. Although no witness at- be identified. United States Court precisely the combined

tempted calculate Sixth Circuit. resulting from the simultaneous det- forces hundred and primacord and one onations Argued 1980. Jan. (120) explosives, find twenty pounds May Decided bring forces were sufficient to that such whether inerted suspension, coal dust into past propel particles and to the dust explosive particle requisite

the threshold juncture, At this the volatile ratio

velocity. probability negated

of the coal dust certainty to an almost

burning and insured ignition. igniting explosion upon gases associ- very

source I find to be the hot primacord with the detonation of

ated in several thou-

which have been measured degrees

sand Kelvin. confrontation dusting would be

such forces normal rock attending The forces

totally ineffective. blow strong enough were explosion Exhibit stoppings

out concrete [Plaintiffs’ at least ignition source was 22] (10) required than that greater

ten times temper- in terms of predictable ignition has determined By testing

atures. MESA coal dust in-

that in extreme circumstances (93%)percent was in- ninety-three

erted to arresting propagation

efficient Ill, E.,

.flame Yol. at 560]. [Tr.

The technical evidence convinces me that practices

those employed by operators Finley mines on December totally any inconsistent with reasona-

ble applicable standards to the use explo- underground

sives in an coal mine. I find evidence which to find or infer

MESA could or should have known that to complete (4) the four mandato-

ry inspections required Act, the mine

operators would have abandoned min-

ing practices employed Green, Schiavoni, Green, the inexcusable Eugene Murphy, practices Sgambati Anthony described the evidence. Haines L. P.

842 counsel for the Board erroneous- Laine, argue that II, Youngs- Barry R. Sgambati,

P. the teachers appeals panel the that town, Ohio, ly told plaintiffs-appellants. for It is guilty been found had Willborn, Squire, Sanders & Steven that had of the teachers the contention Clarke, Cleveland, Dempsey, Charles F. that, and not been found Ohio, for Brunswick Board. contrary impression a conveying Means, Bichimer, Burkholder, John C. court, attorneys unconsti- the appeals Board P. Colum- Baker L. Burkholder & imprisonment. tutionally lengthened their Ohio, bus, for all other defendants. suit of the the We affirm the dismissal MERRITT, MARTIN, F. BOYCE Before reviewing arising claims Court. In District Jr., Judges. and injunctive proceedings, federal courts out of that “no action guided by principle the are PER CURIAM. to party a for resort civil against lies jailing appeal arises the This from Corp. v. United Steel Unit courts.” States colleagues by and his a state court Lucsik America, 483, Workers 456 F.2d Mine ed contempt. Alleging for that certain actions denied, 923, (3d Cir.), 408 92 492 cert. Brunswick, Ohio, City for the of counsel 2492, (1972). As 33 334 this L.Ed.2d contempt pro- during District the School context, recognized related in a ceedings deprived them legal argument a “whether val assertion of the Brunswick rights, the contemnors sued integral unquestionably part is ‘an id or Superintendent may not judicial process’ and be the of the damages the members the Board for and action . . ." basis of a . The District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 584, (6th 585 Stephens, Ellison v. 581 F.2d dismissed their 1978). Cir. could a claim which relief be state courts, course, will entertain dam granted. allegedly-wrongful litiga ages claims his were teachers colleagues Lucsik and support conduct that would cause of tive District who struck the Brunswick School prosecution. action for malicious See During Bruns- April, 1978. strike the Wholesalers, Adolph Coors Co. v. A & S in win- wick Board Education succeeded Inc., 807, (10th 1977); F.2d Cir. 561 813 against ning temporary restraining order Exer-Genie, Inc., Buddy-Systems, Inc. v. stoppage work the local state from 1164, 1976), (9th F.2d Cir. cert. 545 1167-69 order, court. When the teachers defied denied, 903, 1694, 52 431 U.S. brought contempt proceedings. the Board (1977); United States L.Ed.2d Steel court ruled the teachers had The state that America, Corp. v. Mine Workers of United not to violate sign pledging an affidavit Cir.), denied, (3d cert. sign, refused to the TRO. teachers 2492, 33 L.Ed.2d 334 92 S.Ct. county jail. them the court sent Miller, (1972); Wright 11 C. & A. Federal a writ unsuccessfully sought teachers (1973 Practice Procedure § ap- corpus from the state court habeas Note, Interlocutory In Cum.Supp.1980); afterward. peals, but released soon Bond, 73 junctions Injunction Harv. (1959). Absent claim suit Lucsik L.Rev. 343-46 under § malice, however, instances in which attorneys for colleagues and his claim that or non- caused and federal courts have heard unconstitutionally the Board wrong damages claims prolonged their teachers bond-related confinement. injunction extremely are manipulation of the ful issuance an contend Division, See, g., e. Litton resulted in rare. Monroe proceedings attorneys DeBari, 562 Systems, Inc. v. F.2d According incarceration. the Business 1977). teachers, At the basis misrepresented 32-33 also is a during policy desire the state this broad-based appeals facts to vigorous advocacy. United Mo- hearing. encourage teachers Specifically, habeas Inc., 57 legal argument by F.2d Tropic-Aire, attorney. Plaintiffs tors Service 1932). alleged acting through 482-83 have that the Board attorneys purposely falsely misrep- the courtroom is no reason to hold There court, resented facts before the State higher conduct of school boards causing prolonged conduct of other than the lower standard plaintiffs. *3 board Normally, school members litigants. deprivations are liable for plain The issue in the case is whether by motivated bad that are faith. allegations tiffs’ state a claim under 42 Strickland, 308, 322, v. Wood under U.S.C. 1983. To state a claim § (1975). 43 L.Ed.2d 214 Yet allege plaintiffs must facts which § immunity of school qualifying in board 1) would establish at least two elements: members, Supreme only Court dealt deprived right have been of a unique the exercise of an school board protected by the Constitution and laws of function. See States; 2) that the the United defend (“in specific context of school disci- ants have acted under color of law in de pline,” school board members are entitled priving right. Coffy them of this v. Multi- only immunity faith from 1983 § Bureau, County Narcotics case, contrast, The liability). 1979). Clearly the Board was act involves the actions of a school board as ing law in seeking under color of state litigant. ordinary The standard of constitu- enjoin the teachers’ strike. Misuse of the tional board members liability school tort, legal procedure, which is a state law inapplicable thus is to this case. may deprive person of his federal consti right process due procedural tutional in complaint allegation contains no Liddel, malice, egregious Norton v. and no set of circumstances. facts that would con- Cir., 1980); Jennings 620 F.2d 1375 proven. stitute malice if We thus are un- Shuman, (3rd 1977).1 willing to reinstate the suit. 567 F.2d 1213 Construing complaint favorably judgment of the District Accordingly, the considering plaintiffs, as we must in is affirmed. Court dismiss, motion to I would hold that Para graph complaint sufficiently 13 of their Judge, R. NATHANIEL alleges deprivation of their constitutional dissenting. right procedural process.2 due majority opinion completely misses through complaint alleges that the Board its point of this case. We are not con- falsely purposefully mis wrongful with the cerned issuance represented facts before State Therefore, injunction by a federal court. deprive plaintiffs liberty. Such majority opinion the cases cited in the purposeful subversion of party sought which a to recover bond fol- true, claim under process, if would state a lowing wrongful injunc- issuance of an court are inapposite. tion federal Nor Therefore, respectfully are we concerned with the assertion of a dissent. falsely represented Supreme 1. The of Ohio has reversed the Court Court contempt purpose creating appearance convictions of the teachers. Board of Education v. Brunswick Education Association, dispute a material improper purpose as to facts and for the 61 Ohio St.2d 401 N.E.2d 440 continuing Plaintiffs’ (1980). Supreme specifically The Ohio Court deprivation liberty, unlawful that the trial adjudged found that the teachers had not been court had found Plaintiffs imprison- to be in ment. at the time of their and had ordered contempt. representa- finding such attorney tion untrue, was false Defendants’ 2. The reads: findings of as the trial court made hearing day by A was that same County Appeals Ninth the Medina App. 8. hearing, Judicial District. At that Defendant attorney, through