Watkins v. New Albany Plain Local Sch.

711 F.Supp.2d 817

Amanda M. WATKINS, Plaintiffv.NEW ALBANY PLAIN LOCAL SCHOOLS, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: C2-08-134.

United States District Court,

S.D. Ohio,

Eastern Division.

May 10, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Rayl L. Stepter, Columbus, OH, for Plaintiff.

Nick C. Tomino, Medina, OH, John Curtis Albert, Crabbe Brown & James, Columbus, OH, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES L. GRAHAM, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on defendants' motions for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Plaintiff has responded to both motions in a single memorandum in opposition.

I. Factual Background

Plaintiff Amanda M. Watkins is an African-American female who was a student at New Albany High School (“high school”) until she graduated in 2008. Defendants are the New Albany Plain Local Schools (NAPLS), Principal Scott Stewart (Stewart), Assistant Principal Richard Stranges (Stranges), Girls Track and Field Coach Otis Winston, (Winston), District Athletic Director Rex Reeder (Reeder), Security Officer Richard Fisher (Fisher), Dean of Students Regina LeMaster (LeMaster), the Village of New Albany (Village) and New Albany Police Officer Joel Strahler (Strahler). NAPLS, Stewart, Stranges, Winston, Reeder, Fisher and LeMaster are referred to collectively as the “school defendants.” All of the individual defendants are sued in their official and individual capacities.

On March 20, 2007, plaintiff was preparing for track practice when her ex-boyfriend, Gerald Nixon ¹ (Nixon), confronted her near the locker room and asked to talk. According to plaintiff, the two went outside, around the corner from the door and under an awning facing the track. At that point they began arguing. Nixon called her a “bitch” and a “ho” and told her no one would ever love her. (Watkins deposition at p. 111; 113). Plaintiff then pushed Nixon out of her way and called him a “bastard.” ( Id.). At that point, Nixon lifted his hand that was holding a cell phone and struck plaintiff across the face, knocking her to the ground. ( Id.). Defendants Stranges, Reeder and Fisher became aware of the assault and at least two witness statements were taken from two other students. ( Id. at 112; Ex 2-6 to Watkins deposition). The school defendants do not deny that Nixon hit plaintiff while on school property.

On March 22, 2007 plaintiff and her mother, Erica D. Watkins (Mrs. Watkins), met with Principal Stranges and Dean LeMaster to discuss the March 20th incident. Plaintiff completed her incident report at that time. (See Ex. 1 to Watkins deposition). According to plaintiff, at this meeting these defendants told her that one of the school's security cameras had recorded the March 20th incident and that there were several witness statements. She also alleges that these defendants told her that the recording clearly showed that Nixon had assaulted her. (Watkins deposition at p. 183). Plaintiff asserts that she and her mother were not allowed to view the videotape and were only shown a few of the witness statements. ( Id.). She also alleges that Principal Stranges told her to drop the matter and then suspended her. Plaintiff testified that at this meeting she asked Stranges and LeMaster to provide a resource officer or some other person to sit in on the two classes, English and Choir, that she shared with Nixon. ( Id. at p. 131).

The school defendants deny that plaintiff was suspended as a result of the March 20th incident. They also deny the existence of any video recording of the assault. Defendant Fisher is the Coordinator for Safety and Security at the high school. (Fisher deposition at p. 18). He testified that he was involved in setting up the video monitoring at the high school and is familiar with the number and locations of those cameras. ( Id. at p. 28; 32). He testified that he is also familiar with the area where the March 20, 2007 incident involving plaintiff and Nixon occurred and with the location of all nearby video cameras. ( Id. at p. 33). Fisher testified that the March 20, 2007 incident occurred “out of the view of any of the cameras.” ( Id. at p. 38). He further testified that the day after the incident, on March 21, 2007, he reviewed the video recordings from the cameras and there was no recording of any assault. ( Id. at p. 49). Defendant LeMaster testified that she never told plaintiff and her mother that the assault was recorded. (LeMaster deposition at pp. 52-53). LeMaster also testified that the assault took place in an area where there were no security cameras to record the incident. ( Id. at pp. 56-57). Plaintiff does not know where the school security cameras are located (Watkins deposition at p. 118) and has not provided any evidence that there were working cameras in the area that could have captured the incident with Nixon.

Approximately one week after the incident, plaintiff reported to Stewart and Strahler that Nixon was “lingering” in areas where plaintiff would be by herself at school and that this was making her uncomfortable. ( Id. at p. 131). Plaintiff did not have a protective order in place at this time. ( Id.). Sometime in April 2007, Mrs. Watkins filed a juvenile court action on plaintiff's behalf against Nixon alleging assault and harassment. On June 19, 2007, plaintiff obtained a No Contact Order against Nixon from the juvenile court that barred Nixon from coming near plaintiff or her family. (Ex. 7 to Watkins deposition). On August 28, 2007, plaintiff observed Nixon standing near her locker and reported this fact to Defendant Fisher and Officer Strahler. Strahler is the officer assigned as the School Resource Officer (SRO) to the New Albany school district. Plaintiff informed Fisher and Strahler that Nixon had stalked and threatened her on school grounds and that she had a court order that prohibited such contact. Plaintiff claims that Strahler denied the existence of the order and refused to act or to report the abuse to the appropriate Children's Service Agency. Plaintiff admits that Officer Strahler asked her to provide a copy of the order. (Watkins deposition at p. 141). Plaintiff testified that neither she nor her mother provided a copy of any order and Officer Strahler avers that he never received a copy of the No Contact Order. ( Id. at p. 141; 147; Strahler Affidavit at ¶ 5). Plaintiff's mother avers that she provided a copy of the order on August 27, 2007. (Watkins' Affidavit at ¶ 9).

On October 26, 2007, apparently after the juvenile case was dismissed, plaintiff's mother applied for a Civil Protection Order against Nixon on behalf of plaintiff. The application specifically complained of the March 20, 2007 incident, the August 28, 2007 incident and a September incident that occurred off campus. (Ex. 8 to Watkins deposition). The plaintiff never informed the school about the September incident nor did she file a police report. (Watkins deposition at p. 156-157). The court issued a temporary, ex parte civil protection order (“temporary CPO”) that included the statement that, “nothing herein inhibits [Nixon] from attending school.” (Ex. 9 to Watkins deposition).

On November 7, 2007, plaintiff complained to Officer Strahler about another incident involving Nixon in which he allegedly interrupted a conversation she was having with other classmates. (Watkins deposition at p. 160-161). Plaintiff completed a witness statement and returned to class. ( Id. at 162). She did not provide a copy of the temporary CPO to Officer Strahler, although Mrs. Watkins avers that she provided a copy on that date. (Watkins Aff. at ¶ 9). Officer Strahler then contacted the New Albany prosecutor and had the impression that the temporary CPO was not applicable at school. (Strahler Aff. at ¶ 8; Ex. 11 to Watkins deposition). The next day, the court renewed the ex parte Order, requiring Nixon to stay 500 feet from plaintiff, except at school where the distance provision was modified to five (5) feet to allow Nixon to continue attending school. (Ex. 12 to Watkins deposition). On November 20, 2007 plaintiff informed Officer Strahler that Nixon violated the temporary CPO by coming within three feet of her and making a punching gesture toward a friend. (Watkins deposition at p. 171). Officer Strahler advised plaintiff's mother to file a police report but plaintiff does not believe a report was filed. ( Id. at p. 175). On December 12, 2007 after a court hearing, the magistrate denied plaintiff's request for a permanent protective order. (Ex. 13 to Watkins deposition). The magistrate's recommendation was adopted by court order on December 28, 2007. (Ex. 14 to Watkins deposition).

On December 19, 2007, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. The matter was removed to this court on February 11, 2008. Plaintiff filed her amended complaint on May 28, 2009. In her complaint plaintiff alleges violations of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, conspiracy to violate civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C § 1985, spoliation of evidence, negligence, and assault and battery.

II. Standard of Review

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See Longaberger Co. v. Kolt, 586 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir.2009). The moving party bears the burden of proving the absence of genuine issues of material fact and its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, which may be accomplished by demonstrating that the nonmoving party lacks evidence to support an essential element of its case on which it would bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Walton v. Ford Motor Co., 424 F.3d...