Clayton v. Kroopnick

1

JUSTIN T. CLAYTON, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD E. KROOPNICK, FOWLERVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, and FOWLERVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-12156

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

June 23, 2023

TERRENCE G. BERG DISTRICT JUDGE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO (1) DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT RICHARD KROOPNICK'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 9); AND (2) SET A DEADLINE FOR FILING A COMPLIANT AMENDED COMPLAINT

ANTHONY P. PATTI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. RECOMMENDATION: The Court should: (1) DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant Richard Kroopnick's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 9); and, (2) provide a deadline by which Plaintiff must file a pleading that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, namely Fed. Rules Civ. P. 8 and 10.

II. REPORT

A. Background

Fowlerville Community Schools (FCS) implemented a Section 504 Plan for J.C. on September 15, 2021. (ECF No. 17, PageID.1037.)^[1] Section 504 “is a federal law designed to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities in programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (ED).”^[2] In pertinent part, it provides:

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ....

29 U.S.C. § 794(a).

It appears that Justin Clayton, seemingly J.C.'s guardian (id., PageID. 1014), and Jason Miller, the Kreeger Elementary School Principal, spoke on February 28, 2022 regarding “disciplinary action” the school was taking, “specifically related to disrespecting the learning environment and insubordination to school personnel.”

(Id., PageID.1032.)^[3] On March 1, 2022, the Livingston Education Service Agency (LESA) / Section 504 team determined that the behavior subject to discipline was “not a manifestation of the student's disability ....” (Id., PageID.1038-1041.) The form appears to be signed by Principal Miller and Assistant Principal Bobby Sue Adams. (Id., PageID.1041; ECF No. 10, PageID.87.) By a letter of the same date, Principal Miller informed Justin Clayton that “your child,” J.C., had been suspended “[d]ue to the seriousness of the offenses,” and J.C. would “need to appear before the Board Discipline Committee for possible long-term suspension/expulsion, pending the results of [a] hearing[,]” scheduled to take place on March 8, 2022. (Id., PageID.1032.)

It appears the hearing took place on March 9, 2022, at which point the Fowlerville Board of Education Discipline Committee approved a motion that J.C. “be expelled for 180 school days[,]” and also approved “the opportunity for J.C. to apply in August for reinstatement for the 2022-2023 school year.” (Id., PageID.1033.) The record of this case also contains FCS's July 15, 2022 Exhibit List (ECF No. 10, PageID.908-910), as well as transcripts from hearings that took place on July 22, 2022 (id., PageID.428-771), July 28, 2022 (id., PageID.27-427), and August 1, 2022 (id., PageID.772-874).

On August 24, 2022, Hearing Officer Kroopnick issued a 32-page order denying petitioner's request for relief. (Id., PageID.875-907.)

B. Instant Case

Justin Clayton initiated this case in pro per on September 2, 2022 by way of a 63-page filing, which is labeled an “APPEAL TO D[E]CISION REGARDING [J.C.][']S MDR [MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION REVIEW] 504 HEARINGS.” See Clayton v. Kroopnick, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00814-JMB-SJB (W.D. Mich.). Although the initial filing does not begin with a case caption, the docket for the case lists Richard E. Kroopnick (Hearing Officer) and the school district as Defendants. (ECF No. 1, PageID.1.) Perhaps acknowledging that the district is supposed to select an “impartial Hearing Officer,” (id., PageID.56 ¶ 14), Plaintiff alleges that the school district selected Kroopnick, there was “a conflict of interest regarding the selection of the hearing officer . . . [,]” and Hearing Officer Kroopnick “refused to rule in our favor despite the fact that the evidence was clearly in our favor.” (Id., PageID.1.)

Shortly thereafter, the case was transferred to this Court. Case 2:22-cv-12156-TGB-APP (E.D. Mich.). Plaintiff, seemingly as J.C.'s guardian, is proceeding in pro per and in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 2, 5.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) has attempted service of process by mail upon Fowlerville School District and Richard E. Kroopnick. (ECF Nos. 6-8.)

Kroopnick, who is a licensed attorney and a member of the Bar of this Court, has also appeared in pro per. (ECF No. 9.) Although Fowlerville School District has yet to appear, a newly issued summons to a more accurately named educational entity (Fowlerville Community Schools) may yield better results. (See ECF Nos. 18-19.)^[4]

C. Pending motion

Judge Berg has referred this case to me for pretrial matters. (ECF No .12.) Currently before the Court is Defendant Richard Kroopnick's motion (ECF No. 9) to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1). Kroopnick argues, in a single paragraph, that Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against him, contending:

Here, Plaintiff's claim is against Fowlerville Community Schools; not Defendant Kroopnick. Plaintiff asserts only that Defendant Fowlerville School District (sic) selected [Kroopnick] as the hearing officer for his requested hearing under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973[.] Defendant Richard Kroopnick [is] “formerly of Thrun Law Firm.” (Thrun Law Firm, P.C. served as legal counsel for Fowlerville Community Schools in the proceedings at issue.) Moreover, although Plaintiff had been specifically advised that the professional relationship between Defendant Kroopnick and Thrun Law Firm, P.C. had ended more than twelve years before the current proceedings, Plaintiff fails to mention this fact....

(ECF No. 9, PageID.20.) Although Kroopnick's brief argument proffers the fact of his twelve-year disengagement from his former law firm, his motion is not supported by an affidavit or declaration, and, in any case, it is styled as a motion on the pleadings. It also contains no case law or legal analysis in support of the very point being made: that he is an inappropriate party to sue. Interestingly, Kroopnick's motion also does not address whether he is entitled to immunity for his role in denying Plaintiff's request for relief, ultimately set forth in the August 24, 2022 decision (id., PageID.875-907). See, e.g., B.J.S. v. State Educ. Dep't/Univ. of New York, 699 F.Supp.2d 586, 594 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) (Arcara, J., adopting report and recommendation of Foschio, M.J.) (absolute immunity given to state review officer (SRO) on legal claims in IEP review); Moubry v. Kreb, 58 F.Supp.2d 1041, 1050 (D. Minn. 1999) (Tunheim, J., adopting report and recommendation of Erickson, M.J.) (hearing review officer (HRO) dismissed, as the school district was “the real party in interest ....”). If Plaintiff's claims against Kroopnick survive this motion, Kroopnick may raise and brief the immunity affirmative defense, as appropriate. See Burnham v. Friedland, No. 213888, 2022 WL 3046966, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 2, 2022) (Thapar, J., concurring) (“judicial immunity isn't a jurisdictional doctrine; it's an affirmative defense that goes to the merits.”). Plaintiff filed a 4-page response (ECF No. 10, PageID.23- 26), along with 914 pages of exhibits, most of which are hearing transcripts (id., PageID.27-940).^[5]

D. Amended, operative pleading

On March 21, 2023, the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why Defendant Fowlerville School District should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 15), and, on April 12, 2023, I entered an order granting limited leave to amend - namely, ascertaining the school district's proper name - and directing further service activities - namely providing service documents, to include one (1) copy of the complaint, two (2) USM 285 forms, and three (3) summonses, for the properly named school district. (ECF No. 15).

On April 26, 2023, Plaintiff submitted another 63-page filing, this time asking the Court to use “Fowlerville Community Schools” in place of “Fowlerville School District.” (ECF No. 17, PageID.979.) Similar to Plaintiff's initial filing, this filing is comprised of a 7-page “pleading” (id., PageID.979-985), 46 pages of duplicated transcripts as “testimony that supports [his] claims[,]” (id., PageID.986-1031), and 10 pages of attachments (id., PageID.1032-1041). Indeed, the docket information heading at the top of every page of this filing is badly obscured, because, instead of filing fresh documents, Plaintiff has refiled documents to which the Court has previously applied its docketing header. This filing is now the operative pleading. Hayward v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 759 F.3d 601, 617 (6th Cir. 2014) (“Generally, amended pleadings supersede original pleadings.”) (citing 6 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d ed.2010)).

On April 28, 2023, the Court entered an order directing re-service of Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 18), after which the Clerk of the Court issued a summons for FCS (ECF No. 19); each has been submitted to the USMS. To date, FCS has not appeared.

E. Discussion

1. Standing

Standing is “[a] party's right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right.” STANDING Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Thus, preliminarily, it is appropriate to...