Patrick Gentry v. Mountain Home School District

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

JAMES GENTRY; KRISTI GENTRY; and

PATRICK GENTRY PLAINTIFFS

V. CASE NO. 3:17-CV-3008

MOUNTAIN HOME SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Now pending before the Court are a Motion for Partial Dismissal (Doc. 19) and Brief

in Support (Doc. 20), filed by Defendant Mountain Home School District (“MHSD"”); a

Response to the Motion (Doc. 22) and Brief in Support (Doc. 23), filed by Plaintiffs James,

Kristi, and Patrick Gentry; and MHSD’s Reply (Doc. 26). For the reasons set forth herein,

the Motion for Partial Dismissal is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. .

|. BACKGROUND

At the time of the events in the Amended Complaint (Doc. 18), Plaintiff Patrick

Gentry was a student at Mountain Home High School with a 3.5 grade point average. He

intended to attend college immediately after graduation in May of 2014. On January 20,

2014, Patrick and a female student named Jamie Voelkenks were seated in the auditorium,

waiting for a school program to begin, when they began discussing a teacher who had

given them each a “B” in his class. The two students thought they had deserved “A”

grades. At some point, another student named Sarah Ross sat beside Patrick and Jamie

and joined in their conversation about the teacher. Sarah suggested that they report the

“unfair” teacher to the office and write the letter “B” in chalk on the teacher's car; Jamie

suggested—with a chuckle—that they burn down the teacher's house; and Patrick jokingly

suggested that they pour pigs’ blood over the teacher's female daughter, just as in a scene

from the horror movie Carrie.

Someone in the auditorium must have overheard the students’ comments and

reported them to school officials. On January 22, 2014, Patrick was called to the office and

interrogated by a Mountain Home police officer concerning the statements he had made

in the auditorium about the teacher. Patrick's mother, Kristi, arrived at school and was

advised that Patrick would be suspended for ten days, would be required to complete ten

days of community service, and only after those requirements were completed would he

be permitted to return to school. According to Patrick, he completed his community

service hours and was told that a committee would need to review the matter and decide

what would happen next. On February 7, 2014, Patrick and his parents learned that the

review committee had decided that Patrick would not be allowed to return to the high

school but would instead be transferred to the Guy Berry Alternative Learning Environment

(“ALE”), a separate educational facility with its own courses, grades, and transcripts.

Patrick asserts that Jamie’s punishment was less severe than his, in that she was able to

return to Mountain Home High School after performing her community service hours and

finishing her period of suspension, and she was not forced to enroll at the ALE. Patrick

was also not permitted to attend his high school prom.

Patrick's parents disagreed with the committee’s decision and refused to sign a form

that stated that they agreed to the District's recommendations. Kristi and James Gentry

requested a meeting with the school Superintendent to discuss the situation, but their

request was denied. They contend that this refusal to allow them to appeal the educational

decision involving Patrick violated Patrick’s and their right to due process. Mr. and Mrs.

Gentry claim that they were forced to withdraw Patrick from MHSD and move to another

school district so that Patrick could complete his pre-college level coursework and graduate

time. This disrupted his academic performance and extra-curricular activities he had

been participating in at Mountain Home High School. In addition, the Amended Complaint

claims that Patrick suffered humiliation, ridicule, embarrassment, and damage to his

reputation.

The claims for relief arise from alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title 1X,

as codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688. Plaintiffs allege that their constitutional rights were

violated, specifically the right to liberty and property, the right to due process, and the right

to equal protection under the law. They also claim that the statements Patrick made about

his teacher did not constitute a true threat of violence and thus should have been protected

by the First Amendment. The Title IX claim is that Patrick was intentionally discriminated

against by MHSD because of his gender.

MHSD has filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted by Patrick's parents, Kristin

and James Gentry, as they are not the true parties in interest, lack standing to pursue

claims on Patrick’s behalf, and do not state claims for violations of law on their own behalf.

The motion also asks that Plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief against MHSD be stricken as

moot, since Patrick has now graduated from high school and will not be subject to any

decision-making by that entity in the future. Lastly, the motion asserts that the Title IX and

Equal Protection claims should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because Plaintiffs

have failed to state facts to show MHSD intentionally discriminated against him due to his

gender.

In the Plaintiffs’ response to the motion, they agree that Kristi and James Gentry’s

claims should be dismissed without prejudice. As for the claim for injunctive relief against

MHSD, they agree that Patrick is no longer a high school student and has now graduated;

but they object to dismissing the request for injunctive relief because they contend the

issue is not yet ripe. Finally, as to the Title IX and Equal Protection claims, they believe

they have stated enough facts to survive dismissal. Below, the Court will consider these

arguments in turn.

Il. LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a motion to dismiss, a pleading must provide “a short and plain statement

of the claim that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The purpose of

this requirement is to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bel/Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The Court must accept as true all factual

allegations set forth in the Complaint by the plaintiff, drawing all reasonable inferences in

the plaintiff's favor. See Ashley Cty., Ark. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659, 665 (8th Cir. 2009).

However, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “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.” /d. “A pleading that offers ‘labels and

conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ Nor

does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual

enhancement.” /d. In other words, “the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not

require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-

defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” /d.

. lll. DISCUSSION

A. Dismissal of Kristi and James Gentry

As Plaintiffs agree to the dismissal of Kristi and James Gentry from the lawsuit, the

Court will order that relief.

B. Injunctive Relief

“In general, a pending claim for injunctive relief becomes moot when the challenged

conduct ceases and there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.”

Mo. Prot. & Advocacy Servs. v. Carnahan, 499 F.3d 803, 811 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal

quotation and citation omitted). Here, MHSD asks that the Amended Complaint’s prayer

for injunctive relief be stricken as moot, since Patrick Gentry cannot reasonably expect that

MHSD will repeat any of the alleged wrongs it has done to him, due to the fact that he has

now graduated from high school and has enrolled in college. The Court agrees that the

claim is moot. See McFarlin v. Newport Special Sch. Dist., 980 F.2d 1208, 1210-11 (8th

Cir. 1992) (finding that a student suing for violations of her constitutional rights under

Section 1983 was not entitled to seek injunctive relief against the school after she

graduated, as she failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that the event or events

complained of would recur); Grandson v. Univ. of Minn. 272 F.3d 568, 575 (8th Cir. 2001)

(‘That a plaintiff . . . is no longer a student is an adequate basis to dismiss an individual

Title IX claim for injunctive relief.”). Accordingly, the prayer for injunctive relief will be

stricken.

C. Title IX and Equal Protection Claims

MHSD argues that Plaintiffs have failed to state sufficient facts to show that MHSD

discriminated against Patrick due to his gender. MHSD contends that, at most, Patrick has

stated in conclusory fashion that MHSD discriminated against him by not imposing a similar

punishment on a female student who was at least as culpable as he was.

Title IX provides that “[nJo person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be

excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination

under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . □□□□ 20

U.S.C. § 1681(a). “Title IX claims arising from disciplinary hearings can generally be

challenged under two categories: erroneous outcome and selective enforcement. Under

either standard, a plaintiff must show that gender bias was the source of the deprivation.”

Doe v. Ohio State Univ., 239 F. Supp. 3d 1048, 1065 (S.D. Ohio 2017) (citing Yusuf v.

Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709, 714-15 (2d Cir. 1994)). Patrick makes a claim for selective

enforcement here. A selective enforcement claim means that “regardless of the student's

guilt or innocence, the severity of the penalty and/or the decision to initiate the proceeding

was affected by the student's gender.” Yusuf, 35 F.3d at 714. “Title IX bars the imposition

. of [school] discipline where gender is a motivating factor in the decision to discipline.”

Yusuf, 35 F.3d at 715. Therefore, to state a valid Title IX claim, the Amended Complaint

must plausibly lead that the disparate punishment Patrick received at school was

motivated by his gender, or else that gender discrimination was the source of his alleged

deprivation.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment similarly prohibits the

state from discriminating against an individual due to gender. See U.S. Const. amend.

XIV. Fora public school student to establish an Equal Protection claim, he must show (1)

that he was singled out and treated differently from persons similarly situated, and (2) that

the disparate treatment he received was due to a prohibited characteristic, such as gender.

See Ellebracht v. Police Bd. of Metro. Police Dep’t of St. Louis, 137 F.3d 563 (8th Cir.

1998) (applying the standard with respect to public employees).

Having carefully reviewed the Amended Complaint, the Court finds that the facts it

states in support of the Title IX and Equal Protection claims are thin, but sufficient to

survive Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. There are only two paragraphs of the Amended Complaint

that contain facts about gender discrimination. Paragraph 27 claims that “[o]ne of the

female teachers at the District tried to persuade [Jamie] Voelkenks to blame the entire

incident on Patrick, but Voelkenks refused to lie about the comment she had jokingly made

concerning burning down Coach Blevin’s house”; and Paragraph 28 asserts that the school

principal, Dana Brown, “could offer no reason to Gentry as to why Patrick was being

treated differently than Voelkenks ....” Then, the Amended Complaint at Paragraph 60

alleges—in somewhat conclusory fashion—that “the Defendant and their actors named

herein sought to discriminate against Patrick” by “singling him out for exclusion from school

due to his gender.” (Doc. 18, p. 19). As a whole, however, the Court finds that these facts

show that Patrick was treated differently from his similarly-situated female counterpart, and

oT

that a plausible inference of intentional discrimination due to gender has been raised. The

Title IX and Equal Protection claims will therefore survive at this juncture in the litigation.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons described herein, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Mountain Home

School District's Motion for Partial Dismissal (Doc. 19) is GRANTED IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART as follows: (1) Plaintiffs Kristi and James Gentry's claims are

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate them

as parties to this action; (2) Plaintiff Patrick Gentry’s prayer for injunctive relief is

STRICKEN due to mootness; and (3) and the request that all Title IX and Equal Protection

claims be dismissed is DENIED.

st

IT 1S SO ORDERED on this | = _ day of December, 2017.

AE

L. BR 7

f D SYA □□ STRICT JUDGE

i f fo