Parent v. Perille

STUDENT DOEby Parent and Next Friend FATHER DOE, Plaintiff, v. LAURA PERILLE,Superintendent of Boston Public Schools, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-11875-DJC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

November 6, 2018

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CASPER, J.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Student Doe ("Doe"), through Doe's parent and next friend Father Doe, has filed this pro se lawsuit against Defendant Laura Perille ("Perille"), in her official capacity as Superintendent of Boston Public Schools, asserting violations of Doe's constitutional rights and the McKinney-Vento Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq., in connection with the withdrawal of Doe's admission to the Boston Latin School ("BLS") for the 2018-19 academic year. D. 5; D. 11; D. 12. Doe seeks injunctive relief requiring that Doe be allowed to attend BLS this year. Id. For the reasons discussed below, Doe's motions are DENIED.

II. Standard of Review

Injunctive relief "is an 'extraordinary and drastic remedy.'" Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008)). To obtain such relief, the Court must consider: (1) the movant's likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the likelihood of the movant suffering irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) the balance of equities between the parties; and (4) whether granting the injunction is in the public interest. Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Harnett, 731 F.3d 6, 9 (1st Cir. 2013). Doe "bears the burden of establishing that these four factors weigh in [his] favor." Esso Standard Oil Co. (P.R.) v. Monroig-Zayas, 445 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2006); see Rivera-Vega v. ConAgra, Inc., 70 F.3d 153, 164 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting Pye ex rel. NLRB v. Sullivan Bros. Printers, 38 F.3d 58, 63 (1994)) (noting that when the relief sought by the moving party "is essentially the final relief sought, the likelihood of success should be strong") (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

III. Factual Background

Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are drawn from the complaint, D. 1, Doe's motions for injunctive relief, D. 5; D. 11; D. 12, Perille's opposition, D. 17, and the parties' supporting documents.¹

A. Boston Latin School

BLS is a public school for seventh through twelfth grade students within the Boston Public Schools ("BPS"). BOSTON LATIN SCHOOL ADMISSIONS FAQS, https://www.bls.org (last visited Nov. 5, 2018). BLS is one of three "exam schools" in BPS. Id. BLS, in particular, has been described as "one of the best schools in the whole country," id., and the "crown jewel of the city's school system," D. 19 at 34. To be eligible for admission to BLS, students must (1) apply to the school when they are in either sixth or eighth grade, (2) receive a certain score on the Independent Schools Entrance Exam ("ISEE"), (3) maintain a certain grade point average and (4) reside inBoston. BOSTON LATIN SCHOOL ADMISSIONS FAQS, https://www.bls.org (last visited Nov. 5, 2018).

B. BPS Residency Policy

BPS utilizes a student residency requirement for all schools within its jurisdiction. D. 19 at 16-20. Pursuant to the BPS residency policy, "a student must actually reside in the City of Boston." Id. at 16. The policy defines residency as "the place where a person dwells permanently, not temporarily, and is the place that is the center of his or her domestic, social, and civic life." Id. The residence of a minor child is "presumed to be the primary, legal residence of the parent(s) or guardian(s) who has physical custody of the child." Id. Temporary residence in the City of Boston "solely for the purpose of attending a Boston public school, shall not be considered residency." Id. In determining a student's residency, "Boston Public Schools reserves its right to request a variety of documentation and to conduct Investigation into where a student actually resides." Id. In addition, "[b]ecause residency can, and does, change for students and their families during the course of the academic year, [BPS] may continue to verify residency after the commencement of classes." Id.

For admission to exam schools, including BLS, BPS requires students to prove their Boston residency "no later than the first Friday in November for matriculation the following September." Id. at 10. This policy may be, in part, a response to concerns that non-resident parents "go to great lengths" to skirt Boston residency requirements so their children can attend BLS. Id. at 34 (describing the residency proposal for BPS exam schools in an article in The Boston Globe dated April 23, 2010). The residency policy represents "the latest effort to crack down on residency fraud in the city's school system." Id.

Violations of the residency policy may result in strict penalties, including "[i]mmediate dismissal from school" and "[p]er diem fines for the educational and related services" provided to nonresidents. Id. at 10. Students who are dismissed from BPS schools for failure to prove their Boston residency "may appeal this determination through the Office of the Ombudsperson, whose shall be final." Id. at 11. Any such appeal must be made within ten days of the dismissal notice. Id.

C. BPS's Withdrawal of Doe's Admission to BLS

In November 2017, Doe's mother ("Mother Roe") registered Doe for the ISEE. D. 1 ¶ 13. Mother Roe provided an address on Canal Street in Boston (the "Canal Street address") on the BPS residency verification forms, as well as a credit card statement, a Massachusetts driver's license and a social security card application that referenced the Canal Street address. D. 19 at 37-42. Doe took the ISEE in November 2017, D. 1 ¶ 14, and was invited to attend BLS in March 2018, id. ¶ 15. On June 15, 2018, BPS's Ombudsperson, Carolyn MacNeil ("MacNeil"), who is responsible for verifying student residency and enforcing the BPS residency policy, informed Mother Roe that Doe would be denied entrance to BLS for the 2018-19 academic year because Doe did not actually reside in Boston. D. 1 ¶ 17; D. 1-2 at 43. MacNeil also noted that Doe could appeal the decision in writing within ten days. D. 1-2 at 43.

Several weeks after the deadline, on July 15, 2018, Mother Roe notified MacNeil via email that Doe intended to appeal the decision. Id. at 45. Mother Roe also requested the factual and legal basis for BPS's decision and an "opportunity to present [Doe's] side of the case." Id. That day, MacNeil explained in an email that, among other things, the Canal Street address Mother Roe provided on Doe's residency verification forms was confirmed by the City of Boston Assessor's Office to be a commercial building (not a residential address), and that the BPS letter denyingDoe's admission to BLS was returned to BPS as undeliverable. Id. at 48. MacNeil also noted that BPS's residency investigator had successfully delivered the same letter to an address in Easton, Massachusetts. Id. In response, Mother Roe provided additional information regarding Doe's intent to reside in Boston, including the fact that Mother Roe had unsuccessfully attempted to purchase a house in Boston in September 2017 and, since October 2017, Mother Roe "continued to be a Boston resident staying either in various hotels or in friends' or relatives' homes in places ranging from Canada to Florida." Id. at 47. She did not, however, provide a Boston address. Id. Mother Roe concluded by requesting a hearing and explaining that Doe's inability to attend BLS would "hamper [Doe's] development." Id. In a letter, dated July 19, 2018, MacNeil explained that, in addition to her personal review of Doe's case file and the information Mother Roe provided on appeal, BPS's Residency Review Committee and the Superintendent's Chief of Staff had reviewed Doe's appeal and decided to deny it. Id. at 50. MacNeil noted that the letter served as BPS's final response on the matter. Id.

IV. Procedural History

On August 31, 2018, Doe instituted this lawsuit. D. 1. That day, Doe also filed motions seeking a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. D. 5; D. 11. On September 4, 2018, after Perille was properly served, Doe filed another motion for temporary restraining order. D. 12. On October 4, 2018, the Court heard the parties on the pending motions and took this matter under advisement. D. 27.

Doe also moved for preliminary injunction against Perille on similar grounds in Suffolk Superior Court. D. 19 at 126-55. The same was denied on August 24, 2018. Id. at 145. Shortly thereafter, Doe filed an emergency motion for temporary restraining order in Suffolk Superior Court, which was denied on September 4, 2018. D. 19 at 166-220. Doe's appeal of the court'sorder on the preliminary injunction was denied by the Massachusetts Appeals Court on September 7, 2018. D. 19 at 222.

V. Discussion

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Although the Court considers all factors of the injunctive relief analysis, "[t]he sine qua non of this four-part inquiry is likelihood of success on the merits: if the moving party cannot demonstrate that he is likely to succeed in his quest, the remaining factors become matters of idle curiosity." New Comm Wireless Servs., Inc. v. SprintCom, Inc., 287 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002); see Boathouse Grp., Inc. v. TigerLogic Corp., 777 F. Supp. 2d 243, 248 (D. Mass. 2011).

Doe has not alleged distinct, enumerated counts, but has rather averred constitutional violations in several paragraphs throughout the complaint. D. 1. As best the Court can discern, Doe asserts the following constitutional claims against Perille: 1) a procedural due process claim; 2) a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause; and 3) violation of Doe's rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution. Id. Doe also alleges that Perille violated the McKinney-Vento Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.² The Court construes Doe's constitutional and statutory claims against Perille, in her official...