Mitchell v. Westerville City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.

Tonya Mitchell, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Westerville City School District Board of Education, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:11-cv-1057

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

DATE: September 6, 2013

Judge Graham

Opinion and Order

This suit stems from an altercation that occurred on the morning of October 19, 2011 on a school bus headed to Pointview Elementary School in the Westerville City School District. Surveillance video from the bus shows that plaintiff Mikeal Mitchell, who was eight years old at the time, had been disruptive and teased several students that morning. As students were exiting the bus, a female student struck Mikeal with her hand. The bus driver, defendant Deidre Vandewater, radioed for a school administrator to come to the bus, and she stood in the aisle to block Mikeal and the female student from exiting for about ten minutes while the Pointview school principal, defendant Jeanne Roth, arrived and discussed the situation with Vandewater.

Mikeal's mother, Tonya Mitchell, brings this action on his behalf and on behalf of her daughter Michelle Mitchell, who was seven years old and also on the school bus that morning. After exiting the bus, Mikeal and Michelle both went to the principal's office, where, according to Roth, they refused to comply with her instructions, ran around, knocked items off the shelves, threatened to hit her, and used profanity.

The complaint asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for racial discrimination against the Westerville City School District Board of Education, Roth, and Vandewater. The complaint alleges that Mikeal and Michelle, who were suspended from school and expelled for 80 days, were discriminated against on the basis of their African-American race. The complaint also asserts a state law claim for false imprisonment against Vandewater.

This matter is before the court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative for summary judgment, filed by the Westerville City School District Board of Education, and on motions for summary judgment filed by Roth and Vandewater. For the reasons stated below, summary judgment is granted to each of the defendants.

I. Background

In the fall of 2011, Mikeal was a third grader at Pointview and his sister Michelle was a second grader. They got on the school bus at 8:29 a.m. on October 19 and sat in the front row, with Mikeal sitting near the window and Michelle next to the aisle. Within a few minutes, Michelle turned sideways and faced the students in the rows directly behind the driver, and Mikeal briefly rose up and faced the rear of the bus. Beginning at 8:35 a.m., Mikeal rose from his seat — either standing up or on his knees on top of the seat — numerous times and looked around and over the back of the seat toward the rear of the bus. There was much commotion and loud voices on the bus. Vandewater states that Mikeal was "taunting several other students" and that she "repeatedly asked him to stop, but he refused to stop that behavior." Vandewater Aff. at ¶ 4.

The bus arrived at Pointview at 8:40 a.m. Because the bus arrived ahead of schedule, Vandewater kept the students on the bus for about 4 minutes before allowing them to get off. Vandewater Aff. at ¶ 5. Vandewater states that Mikeal continued to taunt students during this time period. Id. At 8:44 a.m., Mikeal grabbed the jacket of a student who was lined up to exit the bus. Mikeal and the other student appear to have pushed at one another, and the other student used his/her foot to push against Mikeal. At 8:45 a.m., Mikeal and a different student appear to have argued for about 15 seconds.

Just before 8:46 a.m., a female student, who was lined up to exit the bus, came near the front row seat where Mikeal was located. Mikeal appears to have made a motion with his left arm toward the female student, though it is unclear from the video recording whether he made contact with her. The girl pushed Mikeal back on the seat and struck him with her left hand.

Vandewater instructed Mikeal and the female student to stay on the bus and radioed for a school administrator to come to the bus. Vandewater Aff. at ¶¶ 6, 8. Vandewater instructed Michelle to exit the bus, but she refused to do so and encouraged Mikeal to get off. Id. at ¶ 7. At 8:47 a.m., Vandewater stood at the front of the aisle so as to block Mikeal and the female student, who were both in seats, from exiting the bus. Michelle stood at the top of the stairwell to the bus doors, such that Vandewater was behind her. Michelle continued to refuse to exit the open busdoors in front of her. As Vandewater faced Michelle, Mikeal pushed into Vandewater's back for 15 to 20 seconds. Vandewater again radioed for help.

Roth arrived at 8:49 a.m. Mikeal climbed over several seats and ran to the back of the bus. As Roth stood at the bus doors and spoke to Vandewater, who remained at the front of the aisle, Michelle pushed into Roth and attempted to exit the bus. After Roth told her to wait, Michelle began screaming and tried again to push past Roth. At 8:51 a.m., Roth allowed Michelle to exit.

Roth then stepped up onto the bus and continued her discussion with Vandewater. Mikeal climbed over seats, went up and down the aisle, and spoke loudly while they talked. The female student remained seated in the front row.

At 8:55 a.m., Roth allowed the female student to exit and told her to go to her office. Roth instructed Mikeal to do the same, but he refused initially and told Roth to "Call my mom." After nearly a minute, Mikeal exited the bus.

Roth met with Mikeal and Michelle in her office. According to Roth, "both children refused to listen to [her] and acted very disruptively" in her office. Roth Aff. at ¶ 8. Michelle ran and crawled around the office, while Mikeal sat on top of a chair back. Id. They both knocked items off Roth's shelves and attempted to leave the office. Id. Michelle threatened to hit Roth and said she would "do the opposite" of whatever Roth asked her to do. Id. Roth was able to talk to Tonya Mitchell on the telephone and explained the urgent need for her to come to Pointview, but Roth received no indication from Mitchell that she would come. Id. at ¶ 9.

The situation in the office "deteriorated" and Roth was unable to reach Mitchell again by phone. Roth Aff. at ¶ 9. Roth states that she believed that she was unable to control Mikeal's and Michelle's behavior. Id. at ¶ 10. Roth called for the police because she believed that she needed help controlling and monitoring the children until their mother got them. Id. at ¶ 11. When a Westerville City Police officer arrived at Roth's office, Mikeal and Michelle refused to listen to him, continued to run around and knock items off Roth's shelves and called the officer profane names. Id. at ¶ 12. The officer called for backup assistance and the police later placed the children in handcuffs and transported them out of Roth's office.¹

Roth suspended Mikeal and Michelle for 10 days and recommended to the superintendent that they be expelled. A letter regarding the possible expulsions was issued to Tonya Mitchell. The letter stated that the grounds for possible expulsion were the following violations of the Code ofStudent Conduct: insubordinate and disruptive behavior, use of profanity, assault, violation of bus rules, and violation of school rules. A hearing was held on November 7, 2011 before hearing officer Debbie Meissner. Tonya Mitchell and her children were present and represented by an attorney. Meissner Aff. at ¶ 5. Based on the evidence presented to Meissner, she determined that the children had violated the Code of Conduct by engaging in assault (Mikeal by pushing Vandewater and Michelle by pushing Roth), destroying school property, engaging in disruptive behavior, engaging in insubordinate behavior, using profanity on school property, and, for Mikeal, taunting another student. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 9. Meissner recommended to the superintendent that both children be expelled for 80 days from November 9, 2011 to March 20, 2012, with an opportunity to return to school on January 4, 2012 on the condition that the children abide by the Code of Student Conduct and provide documentation that they had received counseling. Id. at ¶10. The superintendent accepted Meissner's determinations and recommendation. Id. Neither student provided documentation of having received counseling. Id.

II. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

A. Standard of Review

Westerville City School District Board of Education has moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A motion for judgment on the pleadings should not be granted "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45—46 (1957). The standard applied under Rule 12(c) is the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See Warrior Sports, Inc. v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 623 F.3d 281, 284 (6th Cir. 2010). "For purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving party is nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment." JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577, 582 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). However, the court need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences. Id. (citing Mixon v. Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 400 (6th Cir. 1999)).

To withstand a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, "a complaint must contain direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements under some viable legal theory." Commercial Money Ctr., Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 327, 336 (6th Cir .2007). "The factual allegations in the complaint need to be sufficient to give notice to the defendant as to what claims...