# Patrick Gentry v. Mountain Home School District

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · December 1, 2017

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10008873

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** December 1, 2017
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10008873

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying the standard with respect to public employees

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10008873. Public record. Not legal advice.