Murray ex rel. J.M. v. Lakeland Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.

ETHLEAN MURRAY, individually and on behalf of J.M., Plaintiffs, v. LAKELAND CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION; CAROL ANNDOBSON (BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESIDENT FOR LAKELAND CENTRAL SCHOOLDISTRICT); GEORGE STONE (SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS FORLAKELAND CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT); KAREN GAGLIARDI (SCHOOL PRINCIPALEMPLOYED BY LAKELAND CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT); JONATHAN VALENTE(TEACHER EMPLOYED BY LAKELAND CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT); MARGO L.MAY, ESQ.; MARY ELLEN ELIA (COMMISSIONER FOR NEW YORK STATEEDUCATION DEPARTMENT); THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OFFICE OFCOUNSEL; AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS; in allDefendant's Official and Individual Capacity; Defendants.

No. 16-CV-6795 (KMK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 26, 2017

OPINION & ORDER

Appearances:

Ethlean Murray

Yorktown Heights, NY

Pro Se Plaintiff

James A. Randazzo, Esq.

Portale Randazzo LLP

White Plains, NY

Counsel for Lakeland Central School District Board of Education, Jonathan Valente, Karen Gagliardi, George Stone, and Carol Ann Dobson Marian C. Rice, Esq.

Meredith D. Belkin, Esq.

L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita and Contini, LLP

Garden City, NY

Counsel for Defendant Margo May

Clement J. Colucci, III, Esq.

New York State Department of Law Litigation

New York, NY

Counsel for Mary Ellen Elia and the New York State Education Department Office of Counsel

Sharanya Mohan, Esq.

United States Attorney's Office Southern District of New York

New York, NY

Counsel for U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge:

Pro se Plaintiff Ethlean Murray ("Plaintiff") brings this Action against numerous defendants, alleging various claims under federal law arising out of an incident of purported discrimination involving her son, J.M., and the subsequent investigation of that incident.¹ Before the Court are four Motions To Dismiss and Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. The Court also construes Plaintiff's submissions to be requesting that the Court recuse itself. For the following reasons, the Motions To Dismiss are granted and the Motion for Sanctions and recusal request are denied.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the documents appended thereto, and the filings Plaintiff submitted in opposition to the instant Motions, and are taken as true for the purpose of resolving the Motions.

During the time giving rise to this Action, Plaintiff's son, J.M., was a third grade student at the Thomas Jefferson Elementary School ("TJ"). (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 15 (Dkt. No. 4).) On September 4, 2015, J.M.'s teacher, Jonathan Valente ("Valente"), allegedly discriminated against J.M. by requiring him to sit on the classroom floor. (See id. ¶¶ 15-16.) J.M. told Plaintiff about this incident on September 9, 2015. (See id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff immediately emailed George Stone ("Stone"), the Superintendent of Schools for the Lakeland Central School District, about the incident, and copied Valente and Karen Gagliardi ("Gagliardi"), TJ's principal, on the email. (See id.) Stone allegedly ignored Plaintiff's complaint. (See id. ¶ 21.) Gagliardi responded via letter. (See Am. Compl. App'x ("App'x") 16.)

On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff sent a complaint to Carol Ann Dobson ("Dobson"), the Board of Education President for the Lakeland Central School District, concerning the incident. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 26; App'x 17-21.) Plaintiff alleges that the Board of Education acted indifferently to the complaint and did not conduct an investigation. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 26.) On October 1, 2015, Dobson responded via letter and informed Plaintiff that Plaintiff was required to inform TJ where J.M. was attending school, as J.M. had missed more than a week of school to date. (See App'x 23-24.) Dobson noted that if Plaintiff did not disclose where J.M. was attending school, TJ was obligated to make a report to Child Protective Services ("CPS") because J.M. was in the compulsory age of attendance. (See id. at 24.) Plaintiff alleges thatDobson's letter was a part of a conspiracy to cover up the discrimination that J.M. suffered. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 28.) Plaintiff alleges further that Dobson's letter restricted Plaintiff's constitutional right to free speech and discriminated against Plaintiff because Plaintiff is a disabled veteran. (See id. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff contends that the Board of Education should have launched an investigation into her complaint and called emergency meetings, but failed to do so. (See id. ¶ 31.) The lack of response from TJ and school district employees allegedly "forced" Plaintiff to remove J.M. from TJ. (See id. ¶ 37 (emphasis omitted).)

Plaintiff enrolled J.M. in a different school beginning on September 21, 2015. (See id. ¶ 46.) However, because Plaintiff did not inform TJ that J.M. was attending a new school, TJ filed a report with CPS on October 7, 2015. (See id. ¶ 47.)² The report allegedly was false and malicious. (See id.) On the same date the CPS report was filed, Plaintiff emailed the Commissioner of Education and the Chancellor of the Board of Regents concerning the alleged discriminatory treatment of J.M. (See id. ¶ 48.) In response to Plaintiff's email, the New York State Department of Education ("SED") informed Plaintiff that she had three options to pursue her claims against school district employees: (1) file an Appeal to the Commissioner through the SED Office of Counsel; (2) file a Complaint of Discrimination with the Office for Civil Rights; or (3) file a lawsuit against the school district. (See App'x 42.)

On November 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a petition with the Commissioner of SED ("SED Petition") seeking the removal of Dobson and the other members of the Board of Education. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 49-50; App'x 44.) Then, on November 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights ("OCR"). (See Am. Compl. ¶ 55; App'x 57-63.) Because Plaintiff filed a claim with SED, OCR closed Plaintiff'scase on December 15, 2015, informing Plaintiff that she could file a new complaint following SED's final determination. (See App'x 239 n.1.)

On November 19, 2015, Margo May ("May"), counsel for the defendants named in the SED Petition, filed an allegedly untimely request for an extension of time to file the defendants' answer. (Am. Compl. ¶ 57.) Plaintiff opposed this request. (See id. ¶ 58.) The defendants sent their answer to Plaintiff on December 4, 2015. (See id. ¶ 59.) Included with the answer were four allegedly false affidavits. (See id.) By filing these affidavits, Plaintiff asserts that May became a participant in the conspiracy to unlawfully discriminate against Plaintiff and J.M. (See id. ¶ 60.) Plaintiff filed a response to the defendants' answer in late December 2015. (See id. ¶ 63.) Then, on January 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a letter objecting to SED's decision to grant the defendants' extension request and accused SED of various kinds of impropriety. (See id. ¶¶ 64-65; App'x 176-187.)

On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff served a notice of claim on the Board of Education's district clerk. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 67.) The Board of Education allegedly retaliated against Plaintiff by mailing a letter to Plaintiff on February 22, 2016. (See id. ¶ 68.) Plaintiff responded to this letter on February 29, 2016. (See id. ¶ 69.)

On March 20, 2016, Plaintiff sent letters to United States Attorney Preet Bharara and John B. King, Jr., the "United States Acting Secretary," seeking immediate assistance. (Id. ¶ 70.) Plaintiff forwarded a copy of these letters to OCR and to SED. (See id.) On March 24, 2016, OCR assigned Plaintiff's complaint a case number. (See id. ¶ 71.) In April 2016, OCR informed Plaintiff that it needed additional information to process Plaintiff's complaint. (See id. ¶ 72.) Plaintiff alleges that this request for additional information was nothing more than an attempt to deprive Plaintiff and J.M. of their constitutional rights. (See id.) Plaintiff objected to OCR'srequest and demanded that OCR "cease and desist" from depriving Plaintiff and J.M. of their constitutional rights. (Id. ¶ 73.) On May 5, 2016, Nadja Gill ("Gill"), an OCR employee, sent Plaintiff a letter dismissing Plaintiff's complaint. (See id. ¶ 74.) The letter explained that OCR dismissed Plaintiff's complaint because Plaintiff filed a complaint based on the same incident with SED. (App'x 239.) Plaintiff contends that Gill's letter violated New York State Penal Law. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 75.)

After Plaintiff commenced this Action, on November 21, 2016, SED dismissed the SED Petition on procedural and jurisdictional grounds. (See Letter from Plaintiff to Court (Nov. 28, 2016) ("November 2016 Letter") Ex. 2 (Dkt. No. 42).)

Plaintiff has sued SED, Commissioner of SED Mary Ellen Elia ("Elia"), the Lakeland Central School District Board of Education, Dobson, Stone, Gagliardi, Valente, May, Gill, and OCR for violating several federal statutes. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the Lakeland Central School District Board of Education, Dobson, Stone, Gagliardi, Valente, and May violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") of 1990, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-42, 245, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 78-109.) Plaintiff also asserts that OCR violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 245, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985. (See id. ¶¶ 96-109.) Finally, Plaintiff contends that SED violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. (See id. ¶¶ 100-04.)

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiff initiated this Action on her own behalf and on behalf of J.M. on August 30, 2016 by filing a Complaint. (See Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on September 15, 2016. (See Dkt. No. 4.) On October 5, 2016, the Court issued an Order To Show Cause informing Plaintiff that she was required to "obtain an attorney in order to pursue those claimsbrought on behalf of...