Jarvis v. Hamilton Cnty. Dep't of Educ.

JAMES R. JARVIS, AMELIA E. JARVIS, ANDRE D. MONTGOMERY,BONITA MONTGOMERY, ALLARD J. NAYADLEY and JANET L. NAYADLEY v. HAMILTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE,HAMILTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, MARSHALL N. PINKSTON and FRED R. SMITH, JR.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00172

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA

March 26, 2019

Mag. Judge Christopher H. Steger

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. Introduction

On December 22, 2015, during a multi-day, school-sponsored trip to a basketball tournament, upper-level students on the Ooltewah High School basketball team assaulted freshman members of the team with a pool cue¹ in an incident that drew local outrage and national attention. Plaintiffs Andre Montgomery, Allard Nayadley, and James Jarvis were, at that time, the basketball coach, Athletic Director, and Principal, respectively, at Ooltewah High School. These Plaintiffs filed the present lawsuit alleging that Defendants took illegal actions against them in the aftermath of the assault.

Defendants in this lawsuit are comprised of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services ("TDCS"); the Hamilton County District Attorney General's Office ("HCDAGO"); the Hamilton County Department of Education ("HCDE"); HCDE's former Superintendent, FredSmith; and Hamilton County District Attorney General Marshall N. Pinkston ("Pinkston").² Each Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and/or failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court will DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE all federal causes of action and will DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE all state law causes of action. The Court will enter an appropriate order and judgment in Defendants' favor.

II. Background

A. Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed this action on June 19, 2017. Subsequently, Defendants each moved to dismiss the lawsuit. In response to the motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs moved to amend their 30-page complaint. After reviewing the complaint and the proposed amended complaint (which had grown to 34 pages), the Court denied the motion to amend because the proposed amended complaint was organized in a manner that made it extremely difficult for the Court to determine whether it complied with the requirement set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 to provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." [Feb. 23, 2018 Order, Doc. 125]. The Court did, however, give Plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint. In doing so, the Court provided specific instructions regarding the structure and organization Plaintiffs should utilize to clarify: (1) which Plaintiffs were bringing which claims against which Defendants; and (2) the facts relied upon by Plaintiffs to support each specific claim. [Id.]. The Court instructed Plaintiffs that leave to amend "is not a license to extend the Amended Complaint beyond the claims andfacts alleged in the proposed amended complaint. It is simply an opportunity for Plaintiffs to organize and clarify their claims so that the Court can better determine what claims are properly before the Court." [Id. at 3]. The Court then denied the pending motions to dismiss without prejudice. [Id.]. In response, Plaintiffs filed the current 73-page Second Amended Complaint with fourteen exhibits (for purposes of brevity, this pleading will be referred to hereinafter as "Amended Complaint") [Doc. 128]. Defendants responded with their respective motions to dismiss. The Court will separately address each motion to dismiss.

B. The Amended Complaint

The fact section of the Amended Complaint consists of 29 pages and 186 paragraphs. Not all of the factual allegations are relevant to each claim—neither are they relevant to each Defendant. While the Court makes no finding as to the truth of the allegations in the Amended Complaint, it will—solely for purposes of addressing the motion to dismiss—accept as true all well pleaded allegations. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). A synopsis of the facts alleged by Plaintiffs is set forth below.

• Ooltewah High School is located in Hamilton County, Tennessee. [Amended Complaint ¶ 4]. Plaintiff Andre Montgomery (African-American) was the basketball coach at Ooltewah High School. [Id. ¶ 5 ]. Plaintiff Allard Nayadley (Caucasian) was the Assistant Principal and Athletic Director. [Id. ¶ 4 ]. Plaintiff James Jarvis (Caucasian) was the principal. [Id. ¶ 4].

• On the evening of December 22, 2015, the Ooltewah High School basketball team was staying in a cabin in Gatlinburg—located in Sevier County, Tennessee—where the team was participating in a five-day basketball tournament. [Id. ¶¶ 12, 24].

• After dinner, while Coach Montgomery was washing dishes, three players assaulted a fourth player in another part of the cabin. [Id. ¶¶ 25-26].

• Coach Montgomery transported the injured player to the hospital. [Id. ¶ 27]. Upon arrival at the hospital, Montgomery was unsuccessful in his attempt to reach the injured player's mother, but he was able to notify the injured player's grandmother of the assault. [Id. ¶ 28]. In addition, "[l]aw enforcement authorities were notified of the assault" [Id. ¶ 29]; Montgomery's "designee" contacted the parents of all ofthe players; Montgomery "reported to HCDE designated officials all facts as he knew them" [Id. ¶¶ 30-31, 36]; and "[t]he injured player was diagnosed with simple pain and sent back to the cabin." [Id. ¶ 33].

• Law enforcement arrived at the cabin and began an investigation. [Id. ¶ 32]. Coach Montgomery and the investigating law enforcement officer decided the injured player needed a trauma center. An ambulance transported him to the trauma center in Knoxville, Tennessee, where the injured player remained for five days. [Id. ¶¶ 37-39].

• The Gatlinburg Police Department investigated the assault and concluded that Montgomery, Nayadley, and Jarvis had not committed any crime. [Id. ¶ 45]. The Sevier County District Attorney General's Office charged one player with rape and sexual assault. [Id. ¶ 53].

• On January 14, 2016, Hamilton County District Attorney General Pinkston issued a Juvenile Court summons to Montgomery and Nayadley for failing to report child abuse in violation of state law. [Id. ¶ 63]. Pinkston violated Montgomery's and Nayadley's due process rights by insisting on a preliminary hearing in Juvenile Court when the statute under which they were charged did not provide for one. [Id. ¶ 64]. Pinkston signed a complaint in Hamilton County Juvenile Court initiating prosecution of Montgomery and Nayadley for failure to report child abuse or child sexual abuse in violation of state law. [Id. ¶ 65].

• The media issued inaccurate reports about what had happened, and none of the Defendants attempted to correct those reports. [Id. ¶¶ 46-51]. "[O]n January 15, 2016, Pinkston spoke to News Channel 9 and stated '[a]ny time kids can't go to school or enjoy themselves without fear of violence, it is not a good thing. It's troubling.'" [Id. ¶ 55]. Pinkston gave false information to a reporter that four players were sexually assaulted. An article repeating this information was published in the "Times Free Press" newspaper on January 21, 2016. [Id. ¶ 51].

• Based on the definition of child abuse and child sexual abuse under Tennessee law, neither Montgomery nor Nayadley was required to report the incident as child abuse or child sexual abuse, and, therefore, probable cause was lacking to charge them with the crime of failure to report the same in violation of Tennessee law. [Id. ¶¶ 73-74, 77-78].

• At the preliminary hearing in Juvenile Court, a Tennessee Department of Children's Services (TDCS) representative testified that, pursuant to TDCS Administrative Policies and Procedures 14.1, Montgomery and Nayadley had no duty under Tennessee law to report the December 22, 2015, assault as child abuse or child sexual abuse because the incident did not qualify as such under Tennessee law. [Id. ¶¶ 66-71].

• The "Sevierville [sic] County District Attorney General's Office refused to prosecute Montgomery or Nayadley because they had committed no wrongdoing." [Id. ¶ 75].

• Nevertheless, on February 15, 2016, "Pinkston brought criminal indictments [in the Hamilton County, Tennessee Criminal Court for failure to report child sexual abuse] which were grossly unreasonable" because Montgomery and Nayadley were not required under Tennessee law to report the December 22, 2015, assault as child sexual abuse. [Id. ¶¶ 76-78, 88; see also Ex. 10 to Amended Complaint, State v. Montgomery, No. 298399, slip op. at 1 (Hamilton Cnty Crim. Ct. Dec. 16, 2016)³].

• From February 15, 2016, through December 2016, Pinkston gave interviews to the media in which he gave false and inaccurate information regarding the assault in Gatlinburg including that Montgomery and Nayadley had violated state law by failing to report child sexual abuse. [Id. ¶¶ 55-62, 72, 89-90].

• On May 11, 2016, Nayadley accepted pre-trial diversion. [Amended Complaint ¶ 80]. Nayadley faces loss of his teaching license "because of his prosecution and his decision to accept judicial diversion." [Id. ¶ 86].

• On September 16, 2016, Pinkston published a report that contained many false and inaccurate allegations concerning Montgomery, Nayadley, and Jarvis—including that they knew of ongoing hazing and bullying on the basketball team and had refused to stop it. [Id. ¶¶ 91-100]. "Pinkston maintained a website dedicated to activity on the failure to report case unfairly titled Ooltewah High School Basketball Team Sexual Assaults; [sic] and also sought to participate in public press conferences and appearances on the issue." [Id. ¶ 65 ].

• On December 16, 2016, the Hamilton County Criminal Court dismissed the charges against Montgomery finding that Montgomery had no duty under Tennessee law to report the December 22, 2015 assault as

...