M.P.T.C. v. Nelson Cnty. Sch. Dist.

192 F.Supp.3d 798

M.P.T.C. by his Next Friends his parents, C.C. and T.C., Plaintiff

v.NELSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14CV-00041-JHM

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division .

Signed June 13, 2016

Filed June 14, 2016

Edward E. Dove, Lexington, KY, for Plaintiff.

Grant R. Chenoweth, Robert L. Chenoweth, Chenoweth Law Office, Lawrenceburg, KY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court

This matter is before the Court on a motion by Defendants, Nelson County School District, Board of Education of Nelson County, Anthony Orr, Shelly Hendricks, Jennifer Miller, and Tessa Jaggers, for summary judgment [DN 32] and a motion by Plaintiff, M.P.T.C., for leave to file Plaintiff's second amended complaint [DN 37]. Fully briefed, these matters are ripe for decision.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Before the Court may grant a motion for summary judgment, it must find that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of specifying the basis for its motion and identifying that portion of the record that demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party satisfies this burden, the non-moving party thereafter must produce specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue of fact for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

Although the Court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the non-moving party must do more than merely show that there is some "metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Instead, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the non-moving party to present specific facts showing that a genuine factual issue exists by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record" or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence ... of a genuine dispute[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-moving party's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party]." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. It is against this standard the Court reviews the following facts.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is currently a senior at Nelson County High School. Plaintiff has attended schools within the Nelson County School District from age five to the present. In 2007, Plaintiff was identified as a child with a disability eligible to receive special educational services. Plaintiff continues to be identified as an individual with a qualifying disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, including a mild mental disability which manifests in some learning issues and social adaptive issues. (T.C. Dep. at 12.)

In August of 2008, Plaintiff's parents filed a "due process request" on behalf of their son. (T.C. Dep. at 9-11.) Issues concerning Plaintiff's elementary school educational experience, including allegations of bullying by peers, were raised through an administrative hearing request under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et. seq. These issues were resolved by a settlement agreement executed on June 16, 2009. Based on further "harassment, bullying, teasing, and hazing" that occurred after the settlement agreement, Plaintiff filed this action in the Nelson Circuit Court on December 23, 2013, asserting claims against Defendants for deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, violation of KRS § 344 et. seq. , and negligence. (Amended Complaint at ¶ 15.) Defendants removed this action to this Court on January 17, 2014. The Court granted Defendants' motion for a more definite statement. In response, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 8, 2014.

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that from August of 2009 to June of 2014 he "has been continually, systematically and intentionally assaulted, abused, harassed, menaced, taunted, threatened, teased and bullied." (Amended Complaint ¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges that he sustained verbal and physical abuse by other students. Plaintiff maintains that throughout this time period, he and his family repeatedly complained to school officials that other students were bullying him. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was bullied during both the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school year at Nelson County High School ("NCHS"). (Id. at ¶¶ 17-23.) Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that he was subjected to harassment on the bus, stabbed in the knee with a pencil, beaten up in the bathroom, and had a basketball thrown at his face "while [he] was enrolled at Old Kentucky Home Middle School" during the academic years of 2009-2012. (Id. at ¶¶ 24-25).

The Nelson County School System is operated by the Nelson County Board of Education ("Board of Education"). Defendant Anthony Orr ("Orr") has been the Superintendent of the Nelson County Public Schools since August of 2010. Defendant Jennifer Miller ("Miller") was the principal of Old Kentucky Home Middle School (OKHMS) during the 2011-2012 school year which was the Plaintiff's eighth grade year. Defendant Shelly Hendricks ("Hendricks") has been the principal of NCHS from August 2013 to the present. Defendant Tessa Jaggers ("Jaggers") became assistant principal at NCHS at the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year. (Anthony Orr Aff. at ¶¶ 3-6.) Plaintiff's case revolves around these school officials' alleged failure to recognize and reasonably respond to a pattern of bullying incidents he suffered while attending OKHMS and NCHS.

Neither Plaintiff's amended complaint nor his response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment sets forth a clear recitation of the bullying incidents, which school official or administrator the Plaintiff or his parents informed, or the response by the administrative official. In his response, Plaintiff identifies the following instances of verbal and physical abuse and bullying:

• In elementary school, students placed gum in the hood of his jacket, resulting in gum stuck in his hair. To remove the gum, someone at the school used a cleaning compound resulting in third degree burns to the Plaintiff's head.

• In elementary school, Plaintiff was stabbed with a pencil.

• In elementary school, physical assaults and verbal harassment continued at school and on the bus.

• After the "due process request" that resulted in a settlement agreement, physical assault and verbal harassment occurred on the bus. The Plaintiff reported it to the bus driver, but no action was taken.

• The Plaintiff was also struck in the face by another student with a basketball that broke his glasses and required medical attention.

• The Plaintiff was struck by a cable across his leg on the way to class by another student which left a large welt on his leg.

• The Plaintiff was continuously verbally harassed by other students with comments like "you f__k your mother," "you are gay," and "you f__k your dog."

• Plaintiff was physically assaulted by other students once in the bathroom.

• During his senior year, Plaintiff was physically assaulted in the parking lot of the school.

(Response to Summary Judgment Motion at 2-3.)

As a result of this conduct, Plaintiff states that his parents constantly contacted the school administrators listed as Individual Defendants and the Assistant Principal Mr. Steve Webb and requested that they address the bullying of their son. Additionally, Plaintiff represents that his father made numerous calls to the Board office requesting assistance from Defendant Orr. Despite these reports, Plaintiff contends there were no known efforts to protect the Plaintiff. (Id. at 3.)

Defendants filed this current motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims. After the briefing was complete, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to allege further instances of harassment and bullying inflicted upon Plaintiff in the 2015-2016 school year. Further, Plaintiff moves to amend his complaint in order to prosecute the matter in his own name due to the fact that he has reached the age of majority.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

Defendants maintain that Plaintiff's federal claims are barred by his failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act. Generally, "plaintiffs must exhaust IDEA procedures if they seek ‘relief that is also available’ under IDEA, even if they do not include IDEA claims in their complaint." Zdrowski v. Rieck, 119 F.Supp.3d 643, 662 (E.D.Mich.2015) (internal citation omitted). In other words, " ‘when a plaintiff has alleged injuries that could be redressed to any degree by the IDEA's administrative procedures and remedies, exhaustion of those remedies is required.’ " Id. at 663 (quoting S.E. v. Grant County Bd. of Educ., 544 F.3d 633, 642 (6th Cir.2008) ).

The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff's alleged injuries under the § 1983 claims relate to the provision the IDEA. Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to verbal and physical harassment and abuse by his peers and that the administration failed to respond appropriately. "These injuries are non-educational in nature and cannot be remedied through the administrative process." F.H. ex rel. Hall v. Memphis City School s, 764 F.3d 638, 644 (6th Cir.2014) (exhaustion requirement inapplicable where child was allegedly verbally, physically, and sexually abused because "requiring exhaustion of Appellants' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims would create an additional...