Hemphill v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

CHARLOTTE DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-00286-KDB-SCR

COREY HEMPHILL,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

CHRISTOPHER K. BERNARD

AND CHARLOTTE

MECKLENBURG BOARD OF

EDUCATION,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7). The

Court has carefully considered this motion and the parties’ briefs and exhibits. As discussed below,

Plaintiff has failed to identify or sufficiently allege that Defendants committed a constitutional

violation, which is necessary for him to pursue his claims. Therefore, the Court will GRANT the

motion and dismiss this action.

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. A. Subject Matter and Personal Jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and

12(b)(2)

Allegations of governmental immunity raise jurisdictional issues. See M Series Rebuild,

LLC v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 730 S.E.2d 254, 257 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). The governmental

immunity defense under North Carolina law presents a question of jurisdiction, either subject

matter or personal jurisdiction. Teachy v. Coble Dairies, Inc., 293 S.E.2d 182, 184 (N.C. 1982);

Green v. Kearney, 690 S.E.2d 755 (N.C. App. Ct. 2010); Frye v. Brunswick Cnty. Bd. of Educ.,

612 F. Supp. 2d 694, 701 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 9, 2009). Under Rule 12(b)(1), a party may seek

dismissal based on the court's “lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The

federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may exercise only that jurisdiction which

Congress has prescribed. Chris v. Tenet, 221 F.3d 648, 655 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing Kokkonen v.

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Therefore, whether the Court has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case must be considered before addressing its merits. Jones

v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 192 F.3d 417, 422 (4th Cir. 1999). The plaintiff bears the burden of

proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v.

United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991).

When personal jurisdiction is properly challenged under Rule 12(b)(2), the burden is on

the plaintiff ultimately to prove the Court's jurisdiction over the defendants by a preponderance of

the evidence. Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Centers, Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396

(4th Cir. 2003). However, “when the court addresses the personal jurisdiction question by

reviewing only the parties' motion papers, affidavits attached to the motion, supporting legal

memoranda, and the allegations in the complaint, a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing

of personal jurisdiction to survive the jurisdictional challenge.” Grayson v. Anderson, 816 F.3d

262, 268 (4th Cir. 2016). In deciding whether the plaintiff has made the requisite showing, the

Court must construe all allegations and evidence available relating to the issue of personal

jurisdiction in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id.

B. B. Failure to State a Claim under Rule 12(b)(6)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain “a short and plain

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

However, “Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a ‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to

relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 n.3 (2007).

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for “failure to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted” tests whether the complaint is legally and factually

sufficient. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic

Corp., 550 U.S. at 570; Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010),

aff'd sub nom. Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 566 U.S. 30 (2012). In evaluating

whether a claim is stated, “[the] court accepts all well-pled facts as true and construes these facts

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,” but does not consider “legal conclusions, elements of

a cause of action, ... bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement[,] ... unwarranted

inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v.

Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009). Construing the facts in this manner,

a complaint must only contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Thus, a motion to dismiss under

Rule 12(b)(6) determines only whether a claim is stated; “it does not resolve contests surrounding

the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Republican Party of North

Carolina v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992).

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

During the 2021-2022 school year, Plaintiff was employed by the Charlotte Mecklenburg

Board of Education (the “Board”) as a behavioral modification technician (“BMT”) at James

Martin Middle School. (Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 17.) During that year, Defendant Christopher Bernard was

the principal at James Martin Middle School. On December 17, 2021, Plaintiff was involved in an

incident with a student who was “non-compliant” and “Plaintiff was forced to take measures to

restrain and divert” the student. (Id. at ¶ 24.) Pending an investigation of the incident, which

Plaintiff challenges as unfair, he was suspended with pay but prohibited from continuing to coach

basketball at the school (all of which he contends caused him severe emotional distress and harm).

(Id. at ¶ 37.) Ultimately, Plaintiff was issued a written warning and asked to return to work. (Id. at

¶¶ 33, 39.)

On January 23, 2024, Plaintiff sued the Defendants in Mecklenburg County (N.C.) state

Superior Court, bringing a Substantive Due Process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a claim for Negligent and Intentional Infliction of Emotional

Distress under state law. In his action, Plaintiff seeks punitive as well as compensatory damages.

The matter was timely removed to this Court on March 7, 2024, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)

based on this Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendants assert the

Court may also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law causes of action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that CMBOE failed to properly train him and other

similarly situated BMT employees throughout the school district over a period of at least three

years. He claims that this failure to ensure BMT employees were properly trained put the Plaintiff

and other BMT employees at personal risk of harm and in addition put the schools they served in

a "non-compliant" status. He further asserts that this ‘failure to train' constituted a deprivation,

involved egregious conduct under color of law with regard to a property right of Plaintiff that

shocks the conscience and thus violated the substantive due process protections of the Fourteenth

Amendment, and also constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Plaintiff asserts a single federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 makes civilly

liable any person who deprives an injured party of a constitutional right. However, the statute

does not itself confer any substantive rights. Rather, a plaintiff must identify the alleged

constitutional right violated, prove its violation and establish that the official, acting under color

of state law, caused the deprivation of the federal right. See Riddick v. Sch. Bd. of Portsmouth,

238 F.3d 518, 522 n.3 (4th Cir. 2000); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330 (1986); Hafer v.

Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Substantive

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 129 (1992), the Supreme Court

established that “[a] plaintiff asserting a § 1983 substantive due process claim must allege both

the deprivation of a cognizable liberty interest, and that the deprivation of this interest was

“arbitrary in the constitutional sense.” Callahan v. N. Carolina Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 18 F.4th

142, 145-46 (4th Cir. 2021) (quoting Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 129

(1992)). Yet, the right to be free from harm caused by dangerous workplace conditions is not a

right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. See Collins, 503 U.S. at 129 (“The Due Process

Clause is not a guarantee against incorrect or ill-advised personnel decisions. Nor does it

guarantee municipal employees a workplace that is free of unreasonable risks of harm.”) (citing

Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 350 (1976)).

The facts in Collins are instructive here. The petitioner was the widow of a city sanitation

worker who died after entering a manhole to unstop a sewer line. Id. at 117. The plaintiff sued

the City under § 1983, alleging that, as in this case, the City’s failure to adequately train its

employees caused a deprivation of life and liberty. The Supreme Court held that Ҥ 1983 does

not apply [to a governmental employer’s failure to train or warn employees about known hazards

in the workplace] because such conduct does not violate the Due Process Clause.” Id. at 117. The

Court reasoned that “the Due Process Clause does not purport to supplant traditional tort law,”

meaning “the governmental employer’s duty to provide its employees with a safe working

environment is [not] a substantive component of the Due Process Clause.” Id. at 126-29. The

Court noted that “state law, rather than the Federal Constitution, generally governs the substance

of the employment relationship.” Id. at 128.

Even if Plaintiff had alleged a federal right, he fails to allege that the Board’s actions

were arbitrary in a constitutional sense. In Collins, the Supreme Court also found that the

petitioner’s allegations could not be properly characterized as “arbitrary” or “conscience-

shocking” in the constitutional sense because her claim was analogous to a typical state-law tort

claim – i.e., that the City breached its duty of care to her husband by failing to provide him a safe

work environment. Id. at 128. In rejecting her claim, the Court explained that “we have

previously rejected claims that the Due Process Clause should be interpreted to impose federal

duties that are analogous to those traditionally imposed by state tort law.” Id. Indeed, “[b]oth the

[United States] Supreme Court and [the Fourth Circuit] have warned against ‘constitutionalizing’

state tort law through the Due Process Clause.” Callahan v. N.C. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 18 F.4th

142, 145 (4th Cir. 2021) (citing Collins, 503 U.S. 128).

In sum, because Plaintiff fails to allege a deprivation of a cognizable liberty interest1 and

that the deprivation of this interest was “arbitrary in the constitutional sense,” his contention of a

substantive due process violation fails and his Section 1983 claim will be dismissed.

1 Although Plaintiff labels his cause of action as a “Substantive Due Process Violation,”

he also alleges the deprivation of a property right without notice. See Doc. No. 1-1 at ¶ 68. Under

North Carolina law, an at-will employee (which Plaintiff is presumed to be in the absence of

allegations otherwise) does not have a property right in his employment. See Presnell v. Pell, 298

N.C. 715, 723 (1979); Hunter v. White, 704 F. Supp. 94 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 16, 1988).

B. State Law Claims

In addition to his federal Section 1983 claim, Plaintiff asserts claims of intentional and

negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against Principal Bernard individually. In the

absence of a viable federal claim, the federal question jurisdiction on which this action was

removed is lacking, and the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's

remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484

US. 343, 350 n.7 (1988); ESAB Grp., Inc. v. Zurich Ins. PLC, 685 F.3d 376, 394 (4th Cir. 2012);

Mann vy. Power Home Solar, LLC, No. □□□ CVOO166KDBDSC, 2022 WL 602196, at *2 (W.D.N.C.

Feb. 28, 2022). The Court will exercise its discretion to decline any further consideration of

Plaintiff's state law claims. This is particularly appropriate in light of Plaintiff's request to amend

his Complaint with respect to his state law claims. Accordingly, this matter will be dismissed as

to Plaintiff's federal claim and remanded to the North Carolina Superior Court for Mecklenburg

County for any appropriate further proceedings.

IV. ORDER

NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff? claim

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and otherwise not decided based on the lack of continuing

jurisdiction in this Court; and

2. The Clerk is directed to remand this matter to the Mecklenburg County (N.C.)

Superior Court and then close this matter in accordance with this Order.

SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.

Signed: August 12, 2024

L Coo Ae

Kenneth D. Bell

7 United States District Judge woe