Harris ex rel. Doe v. Parker, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-742-KHJ-FKB

512 F.Supp.3d 714

Jessica HARRIS, NEXT FRIEND OF John DOE, Plaintiff

v.Gary PARKER, in his Individual and Official Capacity, Dr. Tawanza Domino, in her Individual and Official Capacity, and Jackson Public School District, Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-742-KHJ-FKB

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division, Northern Division.

Signed January 11, 2021

Damon R. Stevenson, Stevenson Legal Group, PLLC, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff.

JoAnne N. Shepherd, Donovan F. Mitchell, Sondra O. Moncure, Jackson Public Schools, Jackson, MS, Rick D. Patt, Patt Law Firm, PLLC, Madison, MS, for Defendant Gary Parker.

Steven L. Lacey, Steven L. Lacey, PLLC, Madison, MS, Allison P. Fry, Donovan F. Mitchell, JoAnne N. Shepherd, Sondra O. Moncure, Jackson Public Schools, Jackson, MS, for Defendants Dr. Tawanza Domino, Jackson Public School District.

ORDER

Kristi H. Johnson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This action is before the Court on Jackson Public School District's Motion to Dismiss [25] and Dr. Tawanza Domino's Motion for Qualified Immunity [27]. For the reasons below, the Court grants both motions.

I. Facts and Procedural History

Plaintiff Jessica Harris ("Harris") sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on behalf of her son, John Doe ("Doe"), against Defendants Gary Parker ("Parker"), in his individual and official capacities, Dr. Tawanza Domino ("Domino"), in her official and individual capacities, and Jackson Public School District ("JPSD"), for alleged violations of Doe's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Harris alleges that during the relevant period, Doe was a student at Jim Hill High School, which is under JPSD's authority; Domino was the principal of Jim Hill High School; and Parker was the guidance counselor at Jim Hill High School. Compl. [1] ¶¶ 4-7.

Harris alleges that "[b]eginning at some point prior to 2018, through March of 2018, Gary Parker repeatedly harassed John Doe." Id. ¶ 7. Doe informed JPSD and school officials that Parker's behavior made him "uncomfortable," but JPSD and Domino took no action against Parker. Id. ¶ 9. Parker's harassment culminated on March 21, 2018, when he "attempted to sexually assault John Doe by placing his hands on Jo[hn] Doe's penis and attempting to perform oral sex on John Doe." Id. ¶ 10.

Harris sued on Doe's behalf. Domino and JPSD answered, raising the defense of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Answer [8] at 1. JPSD later moved to dismiss [25] the claims against it and against Parker and Domino in their official capacities. Domino also filed her Motion for Qualified Immunity [27], seeking the dismissal of the claims against her in her individual capacity. Parker, however, has not moved to dismiss the claims against him in his individual capacity.

The Court stayed discovery pending the resolution of Domino's Motion for Qualified Immunity.

II. Standard

Both motions pending before the Court seek dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In reviewing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), "the central issue is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint states a valid claim for relief." Doe v. MySpace, Inc. , 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Hughes v. The Tobacco Inst., Inc. , 278 F.3d 417, 420 (5th Cir. 2001) ) (alteration omitted). A valid claim for relief contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true," giving the claim "facial plausibility" and allowing "the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). The plausibility standard does not ask for a probability of unlawful conduct but does require more than a "sheer possibility." Id. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements" do not satisfy a plaintiff's pleading burden. Id. (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).

III. Domino's Motion for Qualified Immunity [27]

"The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability when their actions could reasonably have been believed to be legal." Brinsdon v. McAllen Indep. Sch. Dist. , 863 F.3d 338, 347 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Morgan v. Swanson , 659 F.3d 359, 371 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc)). "A good-faith assertion of qualified immunity" shifts the burden of proof to the plaintiff "to show that the defense is not available." Trent v. Wade , 776 F.3d 368, 376 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal citations omitted). To rebut Domino's assertion of qualified immunity, Harris must establish Domino "(1) violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." Brinsdon, 863 F.3d at 347 (quoting Swanson , 659 F.3d at 371 ) (internal quotations omitted).

A. Violation of a Statutory or Constitutional Right

When analyzing qualified immunity, this Court must first determine whether the plaintiff has properly pled a violation of a statutory or constitutional right. Harris alleges that Parker violated Doe's "constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment to personal security, to bodily integrity, and to be free from sexual harassment/sexual abuse by his counselor." Compl. [1] ¶ 14. Harris also claims that Domino is "personally liable to Plaintiff for Gary Parker's violation of his constitutional rights ...." Id. ¶ 15.

Sexual abuse and sexual harassment are both recognized violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit has stated: "It is incontrovertible that bodily integrity is necessarily violated when a state actor sexually abuses a schoolchild and that such misconduct deprives the child of rights vouchsafed by the Fourteenth Amendment." Doe v. Taylor Indep. Sch. Dist. , 15 F.3d 443, 451-52 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Furthermore, this Court has held "there is no question that sexual harassment is a deprivation of the right to equal protection and violates the Fourteenth Amendment." Chestang v. Alcorn State Univ. , 820 F. Supp. 2d 772, 780 (S.D. Miss. 2011) ; see also Taylor , 15 F.3d at 458 (noting that sexual harassment could violate the Equal Protection Clause but finding the court did not need to reach this issue).

Though the Complaint [1] implicates a deprivation of Doe's rights under the Equal Protection Clause by alluding to his "constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment ... to be free from sexual harassment ...," [1] ¶ 15, neither party addresses this constitutional violation in their briefings. Instead, Domino's arguments center on Harris's bodily integrity claim under the Due Process Clause, and Harris responds only to the arguments asserted by Domino. As such, the Court addresses only this claim, and Harris's § 1983 claim against Domino based on the alleged violation of Doe's right against sexual harassment under the Fourteenth Amendment remains.

In Taylor , the Fifth Circuit articulated three factors necessary for a supervisory school official to be liable for a subordinate's violation of a student's right to bodily integrity:

(1) the defendant learned of facts or a pattern of inappropriate sexual behavior by a subordinate pointing plaining toward the conclusion that the subordinate was sexually abusing the student; and

(2) the defendant demonstrated deliberate indifference toward the constitutional rights of the student by failing to take action that was obviously necessary to prevent or stop the abuse; and

(3) such failure caused a constitutional injury to the student.

15 F.3d at 454.

1. Knowledge of a Pattern of Inappropriate Sexual Behavior

Harris must assert specific facts about Domino's knowledge of Parker's inappropriate sexual behavior. Harris makes two statements related to Domino's knowledge. First, Harris pleads that unspecified "school officials" had knowledge of Parker's harassment of Doe. Compl. [1] ¶¶ 7-8. She also alleges that Domino "learned of facts or a pattern of inappropriate sexual behavior by Gary Parker which pointed plainly toward the conclusion that Gary Parker was sexually harassing/abusing John Doe." Id. ¶ 16. The first statement does not allege Domino had knowledge of any pattern of harassment by Parker, and the second statement is merely a recitation of the claim elements which is insufficient under the Twombly / Iqbal standard. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).

Even if Harris alleged sufficient facts to establish Domino's personal knowledge of Parker's harassment of Doe, no factual allegations support her conclusory statement that Domino's knowledge "pointed plainly toward the conclusion that Gary Parker was sexually ... abusing John Doe." Compl. ¶ 16. Based on Harris's factual recitation, Parker's harassment did not escalate to sexual abuse until the attempted sexual assault on March 21, 2018. Compl. [1] ¶ 10. Any alleged knowledge of harassment could not "point[ ] plainly" to sexual abuse when Harris does not allege any sexual abuse occurred before this one instance. Harris has therefore not met her burden under the first prong of the Taylor test.

2. Deliberate Indifference¹

If Harris could meet her burden to plead Domino had knowledge of Parker's sexual abuse of Doe, she would still need to plead sufficient facts to show Domino acted with deliberate indifference toward Doe's constitutional rights by failing to take necessary action. Taylor , 15 F.3d at 454. Though Harris's allegations against Domino are insufficient recitations of the knowledge element of the Taylor test, she also states, "school officials did nothing to protect male students from Gary Parker" after they received notice of his behavior. Compl. [1] ¶¶ 10, 16. A school official is deliberately indifferent when she has knowledge about sexual abuse and does nothing to stop it. See Taylor , 15...