Carberry v. Darlington Cnty. Sch. Dist.

1

Alexis Carberry, Plaintiff, v. Darlington County School District, Tim Newman, Carla Jefferson, and Brian P. Murphy, Defendants.

C/A No. 0:23-4565-SAL-SVH

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

January 24, 2024

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge

Alexis Carberry (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se originally filed this suit in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas alleging as follows:

On or about May 19th, 2023 through July 24th, 2023, Plaintiff was hired as a student's Special Education Advocate through Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA Section 504 and Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendants published and stated false statements about the Plaintiff making accusations that resulted in a ban on the plaintiff.

[ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 4 (punctuation slightly altered)].

Based on the above allegations, Plaintiff has asserted claims against Darlington County School District (“District”), Tim Newman (“Newman”) and Carla Jefferson (“Jefferson”) (collectively “District Defendants”), as well as Brian P Murphy (“Murphy”), a local hearing officer (“LHO”). Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for defamation and harassment.

[See ECF No. 1-1].

This matter comes before the court on the motions to dismiss filed by District Defendants and Murphy. [ECF Nos. 9, 13]. Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the court advised Plaintiff of the dismissal procedures and the possible consequences if she failed to respond adequately to the motions. [ECF Nos. 10, 14]. Also pending before the court is Murphy's motion for permanent injunction [ECF No. 12], and Plaintiff's motions for recusal, to amend/correct the complaint, and to appoint counsel. [ECF Nos. 17, 18, 26, see also ECF Nos. 30, 34].

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), this matter has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings. For the following reasons, the undersigned denies Plaintiff's motions and recommends the district judge grant the motions to dismiss, dismissing this case with prejudice. The undersigned further recommends the district judge grant Murphy's motion for permanent injunction, entering an injunction against Plaintiff from filing any civil litigation against Murphy, in any court, without leave of this court and directing her that any further suits she files against Murphy may only be filed in this court.

I. Background

A. Plaintiff's General Procedural Background in this Court

Plaintiff is known to this court. On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed her first case in North Carolina. Benson v. Fort Mill Schools, C/A No. 3:22-00071-FDW-DCK (“Benson I”).^[1]The case was transferred to this court and docketed as C/A No. 0:22-00614-SAL-SVH.^[2]Plaintiff's allegations primarily concerned treatment received by her child in his public education setting. [Benson I, ECF No. 1 at 1, 4-13].

Plaintiff filed two notices of appeal in Benson I.^[3]On September 26, 2023, this court dismissed Benson I with prejudice, finding Plaintiff had failed to state a claim pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. against the Fort Mill Schools/York County District 4 and South Carolina Board of Education. [Benson I, ECF Nos. 134, 147].^[4] The undersigned notes that Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to add LHO Murphy to the Benson I suit. [Benson I, ECF Nos. 102, 116].^[5]On April 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Lancaster County School District and LHO Murphy, as well as multiple others, again asserting IDEA claims, among other claims. Benson v. Lancaster County Sch. District, C/A No. 23-1488-SAL-SVH (“Lancaster County Case”). This case remains pending before the court, although the undersigned has issued a report and recommendation, recommending the case be dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to submit the required filing fees. [Lancaster County Case, ECF No. 23].

Finally, and most recently, Plaintiff filed suit on October 6, 2023, against Greenville County School District, LHO Murphy, as well as multiple others, again asserting IDEA claims, among other claims. See Brown-Sartor v. Greenville County Sch. District, C/A No. 6:23-5029-TMC-KFM (“Greenville County Case”). This case remains pending before the court, although the district judge has denied Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction that requested, in part, that LHO Murphy be enjoined from being appointed as a LHO until an investigation and audit of the South Carolina Department of Education is conducted. [Greenville County Case, ECF No. 19].

The undersigned notes that in Benson I, Benson II, the Lancaster County Case, and the Greenville County Case, Plaintiff attempted or attempts to bring claims on behalf of minor children, her own or others', notwithstanding the court's repeated direction that she may not do so, as she is proceeding pro se. For example, as stated by this court in Benson I:

Although Ms. Benson and Mr. Carberry may litigate their own claims pro se, see 28 U.S.C. § 1654, because they are not attorneys licensed to practice in this court, they cannot litigate on behalf of K.J.C. See Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub. Schs., 418 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[N]on-attorney parents generally may not litigate the claims of their minor children in federal court.”); Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (“[W]e consider the competence of a layman representing himself to be clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others.”).

Benson, 2023 WL 3455629, at *3.

B. Procedural Background in this Case

In the instant case, Plaintiff has sued District Defendants and LHO Murphy alleging as follows:

On or about May 19th, 2023 through July 24th, 2023, Plaintiff was hired as a student's Special Education Advocate through Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA, Section 504 and Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendants published and stated false statements about the Plaintiff making accusations that resulted in a ban on the plaintiff. There was and is no evidence to justify this blatant unethical behavior, but to deny the students right to advocacy, in order to obstruct justice in discovering and continuing to be negligent of providing the student with a Free and Appropriate Public Education. There is however, video and audio evidence to dispute Carla Jefferson and Brian P Murphy's written claims which constitute defamation and harassment against the Plaintiff. This despite the district refusing to disclose the school surveillance video.

The Action of the Defendants were wrong, malicious, and designed and orchestrated by district attorneys and school staff in order to embarrass and damage the plaintiff's reputation. This is because of prior success against the South Carolina Department of Education and other school districts. They are pathetically attempting to create false documentation in order to damage the plaintiff's new special education advocacy business, Angel Advocates for Special Education LLC. Plaintiff has suffered extreme mental and emotional anguish because of the defendants blatantly false agenda and narrative. Plaintiffs suffer loss of wages and business as a result of the deliberate and malicious conduct.

Plaintiff has suffered harm to her reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and distress by having the police department make false documentation about the plaintiff while at the same time refusing to add the plaintiffs name as the victim. Plaintiffs claimed harassment by Carla Jefferson as she followed the plaintiff around the school property attempting to provoke her and the parent she was representing.

[ECF No. 1-1 ¶¶ 4-6 (punctuation slightly altered)].

As context to the above allegations, it appears that parties agree that in April 2022, the parents of a child with special needs contacted Plaintiff after she began an advocacy business titled Angel Advocates 4 Special Education LLC, to, in Plaintiff's words, “help other parents navigate the system and obtain justice for their children with special needs.” [ECF No. 17 at 2].

Regarding this child, it appears that Plaintiff sought to attend the child's individualized educational plan (“IEP”) meetings with the parents, and in May 2023, one such IEP meeting was scheduled. [ECF No. 17 at 4, ECF No. 17-3 at 3]. At this meeting, a dispute arose among Plaintiff, the parents, school personnel and, eventually, police personnel, that initially concerned whether the IEP meeting was to be held virtually or in person. [See ECF No. 9-2 at 6].

As Plaintiff stated, on June 18, 2023, LHO Murphy was appointed to the child's case, and Plaintiff argues as follows:

On June 18th the Appointment of a LOCAL hearing officer was given. At no surprise, it was Brian P Murphy all the way from Greenville, SC. This would be his 7th appointment in a row with Brian P Murphy for the plaintiff within 4 separate school districts over the course of 2 years ....

Brian P Murphy then issues an Order June 21st making false and derogatory claims and restrictions to the plaintiff with the sole purpose to continue to create false documentation to defame the plaintiff and stop her from exposing the “scheme” the LHO participates in within the SCDOE IDEA DPH process and procedures. This has been the case since Spring of 2022 with this LHO and the plaintiff, in which he continues to harass, stonewall and follow her around the state as she advocates for special needs students ....

During the recorded pre hearing conference, LHO Murphy refused to allow the advocate to advise and assist the parents in asking and answering questions with regard to the hearing denying the child's right

...