Mills v. Bd. of Educ.

1

TERESA MILLS and CLINTON MILLS, individually and as parents and guardians of C.M., Plaintiffs, v. CABELL COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, JONNA DAVIS, MICKEY COPLEY, TIFFANY BLACK, NATALIE MASTRANGELO, and JOHN BAKER, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:22-0592

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division

August 3, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT C. CHAMBERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal. ECF No. 11. In this Motion, Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Counts II, III, VI, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII XVIII, XIX, and XX for failure to state a claim. Id. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART this Motion. Id. The Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss as to Counts II, III, and XIX, and DENIES it as to Counts VI, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, and XX. Id.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Teresa Mills and Clinton Mills, individually and as parents and guardians of their minor child C.M., bring suit against the Cabell County Board of Education (CCBOE) and a series of CCBOE agents or employees assigned to care for C.M including Jonna Davis, Mickey Copley, Tiffany Black, Natalie Mastrangelo, and John Baker. Compl., ECF No. 1. They raise the following claims against all Defendants: Negligence (Count I), Negligence Per Se (Count II), Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count III), Disability Discrimination in Violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act (Count VI), and Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment under § 1983 (Count XVIII). Id. Plaintiffs raise the following claims against the CCBOE only: Negligent Training and Supervision (Count IV), Negligent Hiring/Retention (Count V), Disability Discrimination in Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Count VII), Violation of the Rehab Act (Count VIII), Failure to Make Reasonable Accommodations in Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Count IX), Intentional Spoilation (Count XIX), and Negligent Spoilation (Count XX). Id. Finally, Plaintiff raise claims for Civil Battery (Count X) and Civil Assault (Count XI) against Defendant Black; Civil Battery (Count XII) and Civil Assault (Count XIII) against Defendant Davis; Civil Battery (Count XIV) and Civil Assault (Count XV) against Defendant Baker; False Imprisonment (Count XVI) against Defendants Black, Copley, Davis, and Baker; and Outrage (Count XVII) against all individual defendants. Id.

Plaintiff alleges that C.M. is a fifteen-year-old minor with Phelan-McDermid Syndrome, a rare genetic disorder that contributes to C.M.'s diagnoses of autism, epilepsy, failure to thrive, pica, and anxiety. Id. ¶¶ 20-22. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that C.M. has an unstable gait and suffers from constipation, cellulitis, rumination syndrome, and serious allergies to strawberries and eggs. Id. ¶¶ 23, 25, 29. He allegedly requires a high calorie diet of at least 2200 calories per day. Id. ¶ 26. As a result of these conditions, Plaintiff notes that C.M. requires supervision to assist with toileting and to ensure he is not attempting to eat inedible items, entering unsafe areas, experiencing a seizure, or choking. Id. ¶¶ 27-28, 32. Though nonverbal, C.M. allegedly responds to verbal and gestural prompts and is able to communicate basic needs using a communication device. Id. ¶¶ 24, 34, 36-38. C.M. began attending Huntington High School on August 22, 2022. Id. ¶ 48. His schedule comprised four class modules taught by Defendants Davis, Copley, and Mastrangelo, as well as a lunch period. Id. ¶¶ 51-56. C.M.'s parents were soon confronted with a number of concerns-that C.M. was not spending sufficient time in the classroom, his toileting needs were not being met, he was not being properly cleaned following toileting accidents, he was not receiving appropriate high-calorie foods, and his communication device was not available for his use. Pls.' Resp. to Defs.' Mot. for Partial Dismissal at 2, ECF No. 16 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 58-79, ECF No. 1). These concerns led them to request surveillance video of C.M. in his classes from CCBOE. Id. They allege these surveillance videos depict Defendants, inter alia, barricading C.M. in the corner of his classroom, grabbing his face, watching and laughing as he had a bowel movement and then spraying air freshener in his direction; failing to change his diaper or take him to the restroom; withholding food and drink; restraining C.M. in his chair; and withholding his communication device. Id. at 2-3 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 85, 87, 109, 111, 114, ECF No. 1). Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Baker removed C.M. from the classroom and out of the sight of the school's video cameras on September 15 and 23, 2022. Id. at 3 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 89-94, 114, ECF No. 1).

Plaintiffs additionally allege that Defendant CCBOE failed to supply video footage within the seven-day window required under West Virginia law. Id. (citing Compl. ¶¶ 80-83, 185, 16279, ECF No. 1). Defendant CCBOE also allegedly refused to produce video footage of the hallway and building exterior on certain requested dates-first claiming the video footage was lost, and then that the footage would take a long time to obtain. Id. at 3-4 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 105-07, 13243, ECF No. 1). Finally, Plaintiffs claim that the individual defendants failed to report abuse and neglect occurring in C.M.'s classroom in violation of state mandatory reporting laws. Id. at 3 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 162-79).

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this action on December 19, 2022. Compl., ECF No. 1. In it, Plaintiffs request compensatory damages including, inter alia, attorneys' fees and costs, economic and non-economic damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, punitive damages, and injunctive relief to require CCBOE to correct their policies and practices. Id. at 47. Approximately three months later, on February 17, 2023, Defendants moved for partial dismissal. Mot. for Partial Dismissal, ECF No. 11. In the instant Motion to Dismiss, all Defendants move to dismiss Counts II, III, VI, and XIV through XX of Plaintiffs' Complaint for failure to state a claim. Mot. for Partial Dismissal, ECF No. 11. Plaintiffs oppose dismissal as to all counts listed by Defendants. Pls.' Resp. to Defs.' Mot. for Partial Dismissal, ECF No. 16. The Court addresses the parties' arguments as to each of the contested counts below.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing [the plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). While the facts alleged in the complaint need not be probable, the statement must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has facial plausibility when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). In considering the plausibility of a plaintiff's claim, the Court accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true. Id. Still, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citation omitted).

Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. If a court finds from its analysis that “the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not ‘show[n]'- ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.'” Id. (quoting, in part, Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). Nonetheless, a plaintiff need not show that success is probable to withstand a motion to dismiss. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (“[A] well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.”).

III. DISCUSSION

A. The Court need not reach Defendants' arguments as to any claims against the individual defendants in their official capacity.

As a threshold matter, Defendants withdrew their argument that Plaintiffs' claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities were improperly duplicitous of the claims against CCBOE. Reply in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. for Partial Dismissal at 2, ECF No. 19. Plaintiffs have clarified that their claims against Defendants Davis, Copley Black, Mastrangelo, and Baker are in their individual capacities only. Pls.' Resp. to Defs.' Mot. for Partial Dismissal at 5, ECF No. 16. The issue is therefore moot, and the Court need not reach it.

B. Because West Virginia law does not recognize a claim for negligence per se, Count II is dismissed.

Plaintiffs premise Count II on Defendants' alleged violations of two statutes-West Virginia Code §§ 49-2-803 and 18-20-11. Compl. ¶¶ 162-65, 180-84, ECF No. 1. Section 49-2-803(a) requires school personnel with “reasonable cause to suspect that a child is neglected or abused . . . or [who] observes the child being subjected to conditions that are likely to result in abuse or neglect shall immediately . . . report the circumstances” to the Department of Health and Human Resources as well as the person in charge of the school.^[1] A neglected child includes a child “whose physical or mental health is harmed or threatened by a present refusal, failure, or inability of the . . . parent, guardian, or custodian to supply the child with necessary food . . . supervision, medical care, or education.” W.Va. Code § 49-1-201. An abused child is one “whose health or welfare is being harmed or threatened by a parent,...