# Myers

> District Court, D. Oregon · April 17, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11317460

## Case

- **Full name:** Jeffrey Myers v. Beaverton School District 48J
- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** April 17, 2026
- **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/11317460

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JEFFREY MYERS, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00677-AN

Plaintiff,
v.
OPINION AND ORDER
BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 48J,

Defendant.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Meyers, who is self-represented and thus proceeding pro se, brings this action
against defendant Beaverton School District 48J (“defendant” or the “District”), alleging that defendant’s
implementation of a digital hall pass system violates his substantive and procedural due process rights under
the Fourteenth Amendment; Oregon Revised Statutes (“ORS”) § 336.187; and Article I, sections 9 and 10
of the Oregon Constitution.1 On June 6, 2025, defendant filed a motion to dismiss this case in its entirety
for failure to state a claim and to dismiss the Oregon Constitution Article I, section 9 claim for lack of
standing. Plaintiff timely filed a response, and defendant timely filed a reply. Upon review of the parties’
filings, the Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Local R. 7-
1(d). For the reasons stated herein, defendant’s motion is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED
without prejudice and with leave to amend.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Motion to Dismiss
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be granted only when there is no cognizable
legal theory to support the claim or when the complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to state a facially

1 Plaintiff has withdrawn his claim brought under ORS § 336.184. See Pl. Resp. Opp’n Def. Mot. to Dismiss
(“Pl. Resp.”), ECF 26, at 3. Plaintiff also clarifies that he does not assert independent claims under either
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) or the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment
(“PPRA”) and that he cites those statutes only as relevant context for his constitutional and statutory claims.
Id.
plausible claim for relief. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010).
In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint’s factual allegations, the court must accept as true all well-
pleaded material facts alleged in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party. Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012); Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l
Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). To be entitled to a presumption of truth, allegations in a
complaint “may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations
of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Starr
v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). The court must draw all reasonable inferences from the
factual allegations in the plaintiff’s favor. Newcal Indus. v. Ikon Off. Sol., 513 F.3d 1038, 1043 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2008). The court need not, however, credit a plaintiff’s legal conclusions that are couched as factual
allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009).
A complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to “plausibly suggest an entitlement to
relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and
continued litigation.” Starr, 652 F.3d at 1216. “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)).
“The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
At the motion to dismiss stage, courts may consider “allegations contained in the pleadings, exhibits
attached to the complaint, and matters properly subject to judicial notice[,]” as well as “a writing referenced
in a complaint but not explicitly incorporated therein if the complaint relies on the document and its
authenticity is unquestioned.” Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 763 (9th Cir. 2007).
B. Self-Represented Litigants
Pleadings filed by self-represented litigants “are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted
by lawyers.” Graves v. Nw. Priority Credit Union, No. 3:20-cv-00770-JR, 2020 WL 8085140, at *2 (D.
Or. Dec. 12, 2020) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). “In cases involving a [self-
represented] plaintiff, the court construes the pleadings liberally and affords the plaintiff the benefit of any
doubt.” Kali v. Bulk Handling Sys., No. 6:18-cv-02010-AA, 2019 WL 1810966, at *4 (D. Or. Apr. 23,
2019) (citing Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 392 (9th Cir. 2004)). Further, “[u]nless it is absolutely
clear that no amendment can cure the defect,” self-represented litigants are “entitled to notice of the
complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.” Garity v. APWU
Nat’l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248
(9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)).
BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
This case centers around a digital hall pass (“DHP”) system implemented by defendant. 1st Am.
Compl. (“Compl.”), ECF 8, ¶ 11. On January 24, 2025, plaintiff learned that his child’s school, Mountain
View Middle School (“MVMS”), had implemented the DHP system. Id. When the DHP system was
introduced, it was limited to restroom usage; however, within approximately two months, the DHP system
was expanded to include visits to the health room, student lockers, and technology support. Id. ¶ 14.
The DHP system is operated through the Synergy Student Information System (“Synergy SIS”)
and is accessible to students via a digital portal called StudentVUE. Id. ¶¶ 2, 12. To request a hall pass,
students log in to their StudentVUE account, click “Request a Hall Pass,” and select a destination and
duration. Id. ¶ 12 & Ex. B, at 3-5. Staff monitor and review real-time usage and approve hall pass requests.
Id. ¶ 12. The DHP system
also includes more advanced behavioral and logistical features—such as limiting the
number of students allowed in a given destination (e.g., a maximum of two students in the
health room at one time), controlling when hall passes can be requested (e.g. disabling
requests during the first and last 10 minutes of a class), and enforcing individualized
restrictions (e.g., preventing Student A from receiving a hall pass if Student B currently
has one, even if the students are in different classrooms or grade levels).

Id. ¶ 13E. From time to time, the school’s Behavioral Health and Wellness Team (“BHWT”) reviews the
DHP system data to identify patterns in student movement and flag students for “extraordinarily high”
usage. Id. ¶¶ 13F, 17A. These data reviews can result in staff-initiated meetings with students, without
prior notice to parents, with the goal of increasing students’ educational engagement and success in school.
Id. ¶ 13F.
Although parents can view traditional attendance data, such as absences and tardies, through the
ParentVUE portal, parents cannot view the data collected through the DHP system. Id. ¶ 13B. The data
captured by the DHP system—consisting of the student’s name, time of request, destination (e.g., restroom,
health center, or locker), selected duration, approving staff member, and total time out—is stored in Synergy
SIS with no parental review process, purge policy, or expiration schedule. Id. ¶¶ 14A, 15A.
Approximately 150 staff members across the District have access to DHP data for students at
MVMS. Id. ¶ 15A. The list of authorized users includes MVMS staff, including the principal, assistant
principals, teachers, school counselors, and support staff, as well as individuals who serve all District
students. Id. ¶ 15A & Ex. C.
On February 26, 2025, plaintiff submitted his concerns regarding the DHP system to the MVMS
principal. Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff received a response from the principal on March 20, wherein the principal
acknowledged that the DHP system tracks patterns and behaviors and may be used to identify “medical
needs not yet diagnosed,” but nonetheless asserted that the DHP system merely digitizes the prior non-
digital attendance process. Id. ¶ 13 & Ex. D at 1-5. In the March 20 letter, the principal also informed
plaintiff that school staff “are permitted to take actions necessary to maintain a safe and secure learning
environment,” including managing student movement within school facilities. Id. ¶ 19 & Ex. D at 2.
On March 23, plaintiff submitted formal complaints to the United States Department of Education
regarding the DHP system under both FERPA and the PPRA. Id. ¶ 24. Also on March 23, plaintiff
submitted a complaint and supplemental documentation to the District via its online complaint portal. Id.
¶ 22 & Exs. F, G. On April 3, the District’s Compliance Officer responded to plaintiff’s complaint. Id.
¶ 22A & Ex. H. In the response, “[t]he District reiterated its position that the [DHP] system did not require
parental notice or consent, that student movement tracking within the school was permissible under in loco
parentis, and that the system would not be suspended or reviewed further.” Id. ¶ 22A. Plaintiff and the
Compliance Officer exchanged emails thereafter, which plaintiff asserts resulted in “arbitrary
reclassification of his complaint status, inconsistent explanations of policy, and an unwillingness to
acknowledge the urgency or scale of the issue.” Id. ¶ 23. Plaintiff thus “determined that further delay
through internal channels would be ineffective” and proceeded to file this action. Id. ¶ 23A.
B. Procedural Background
On April 21, plaintiff initiated this action in state court, and on April 24, defendant removed to
federal court. Not. of Removal, ECF 1, at 2 & Ex. 1 at 1. Also on April 24, defendant’s counsel informed
plaintiff “that the District would be pausing its internal complaint response due to the pending lawsuit.”
Compl. ¶ 23B & Ex. J. On May 23, plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint, which includes
thirteen exhibits. The same day, plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and
preliminary injunction, ECF 9, which the parties then fully briefed. On June 6, defendant filed the instant
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Def. Mot., ECF 19. Plaintiff responded in opposition, Pl.
Resp., ECF 26; and defendant filed a reply in support, Def. Reply, ECF 37. The Court heard oral argument
from the parties regarding the motion for TRO and preliminary injunction on July 3. Mins. of Proceedings
of July 3, 2025, ECF 36. The Court denied the motion on the record, id., and subsequently issued a written
opinion and order explaining its decision, Op. & Order of July 18, 2025, ECF 38.
DISCUSSION
The Court addresses each of plaintiff’s claims in turn below.
A. Due Process Claims
Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged his substantive and procedural due process claims. The Court
addresses each in turn.
1. Substantive Due Process
Plaintiff has not adequately alleged a violation of his substantive due process rights. To begin,
plaintiff identifies the liberty right at issue here as “a substantive liberty interest in directing the care,
custody, and upbringing of [his] child[],” which plaintiff argues is guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment. Compl. ¶ 30. In his response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff further specifies that
the DHP system encroaches on plaintiff’s “authority to direct [his] child[]’s mental health care.” Pl. Resp.
4 (citing Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979)).
Much of the Court’s earlier analysis continues to apply here. See Op. & Order of July 18, 2025.
To begin, it is undisputed that the right “of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of
children under their control” is a fundamental right for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pierce v.
Soc’y of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35 (1925). But this broad
parental right is not absolute: it “must bow to other countervailing interests and rights, such as the basic
independent life and liberty rights of the child and of the State acting as parens patriae.” Mueller v. Auker,
700 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2012); see Fields v. Palmdale Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 1197, 1204 (9th Cir. 2005),
op. am. on denial of reh’g on other grounds, 447 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). “[O]nce parents
make the choice as to which school their children will attend, their fundamental right to control the
education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished.” Fields, 427 F.3d at 1206. Under Ninth
Circuit precedent, parents
do not have a fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child.
Whether it is the school curriculum, the hours of the school day, school discipline, . . .
or . . . a dress code, these issues of public education are generally committed to the control
of state and local authorities.

Id. (cleaned up). Indeed, “with respect to education, parents have the right to choose the educational forum,
but not what takes place inside the school.” Cal. Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v.
Torlakson, 973 F.3d 1010, 1020 (9th Cir. 2020). “Parents therefore do not have a due process right to
interfere with the curriculum, discipline, hours of instruction, or the nature of any other curricular or
extracurricular activities.” Id.
This means that “identifying a general parental right is far different than concluding that it has been
infringed.” Hooks v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 228 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2000). The Supreme Court has
cautioned courts to be “reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for
responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” Collins v. City of Harker
Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992). Given this concern, courts must “begin with a careful description of
the asserted fundamental liberty interest” and “then decide whether the asserted interest is objectively,
deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that
neither liberty nor justice would exist if it was sacrificed.” Regino v. Staley, 133 F.4th 951, 960 (9th Cir.
2025) (cleaned up).
Plaintiff has not adequately identified a fundamental liberty interest. Plaintiff’s allegations focus
largely on defendant’s use of the DHP system to flag students for meetings with counselors to address
possible behavioral or psychological concerns without parental involvement, which plaintiff argues violates
parents’ fundamental interest in directing the care, custody, and upbringing of their children. See Compl.
¶¶ 30, 36 (suggesting that defendant’s use of the DHP system to collect behavioral data and “trigger staff-
led evaluations without involving families creates a constitutionally significant intrusion into parental
decision-making”). It is not clear whether plaintiff asserts a parental right to decide whether defendant can
collect student behavioral data through the DHP system, a parental right to decide whether defendant can
use the data to initiate meetings with students to address potential behavioral or psychological concerns, or
simply a parental right to notice if any such activities occur. Regardless, the Court must conclude that none
of these asserted rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition . . . such that neither liberty
nor justice would exist if [they were] sacrificed.” Regino, 133 F.4th at 960.
Plaintiff provides minimal argument in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, citing primarily
to Parham for the principle “that parents, not schools, have the authority to direct their children’s mental
health care.” Pl. Resp. 4 (citing Parham, 442 U.S. at 602). But the Parham court’s holding was cabined
more narrowly than plaintiff suggests. In that case, the Supreme Court considered “what process is
constitutionally due a minor child whose parents . . . seek state administered institutional mental health care
for the child and specifically whether an adversary proceeding is required prior to or after the commitment.”
Parham, 442 U.S. at 587. Unlike here, the constitutional due process right at issue in Parham was the
child’s “liberty interest in not being confined unnecessarily for medical treatment.” Id. at 600. Parham
thus contends with the tension between parents’ traditional authority to direct their children’s physical and
mental healthcare and the state’s duty to protect a child’s constitutional due process rights. Id. at 602-03,
606. Even in that context, the Parham court recognized that parents’ traditional authority to direct their
children’s healthcare is not absolute: “a state is not without constitutional control over parental discretion
in dealing with children when their physical or mental health is jeopardized,” for example. Id. at 603.
Parham does not establish the sweeping parental liberty interest that plaintiff urges this Court to find here.
Plaintiff also asserts that the DHP system is analogous to an unauthorized psychological evaluation
that the District of Maine found unconstitutional in Grendell v. Gillway, 974 F. Supp. 46 (D. Me. 1997).
See Compl. ¶¶ 31, 36. But the Grendell court did not find that the use of a psychological evaluation was
unconstitutional. See 974 F. Supp. at 49-50. In fact, Grendell did not concern the right to parental discretion
at all. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants had “use[d] her . . . to elicit incriminating
information about her parents” when she was a minor. Id. at 50. The eleven-year-old plaintiff was pulled
out of class to speak with a guidance counsel and two police officers about her parents’ suggested drug use.
Id. at 49. One of the officers told the plaintiff that her parents would be arrested if she did not cooperate,
but that nothing would happen to her parents if she answered his questions. Id. That same officer warned
the plaintiff not to tell her parents about the conversation because “often parents beat their children after
the children talk to the police.” Id. The plaintiff acquiesced and told the officers about her parents’
marijuana usage. Id. The District of Maine found that the officer’s behavior—lying and threatening an
eleven-year-old child into becoming an “unwilling informant against her own parents”—violated the child’s
due process rights. Id. at 52; see also id. at 51 (“This type of coercive extraction of indicting information
from an eleven year old girl about her parents is reprehensible behavior unworthy of constitutional
protection.”). The District of Maine did not address the parents’ due process rights or the constitutionality
of a psychological evaluation, and nothing in plaintiff’s allegations comes close to the “reprehensible
behavior” at issue in Grendell.
The rights plaintiff alleges are entirely separate. Plaintiff seeks the right to direct how defendant
collects and uses student behavioral data, and the right to notice of such data usage. While these rights
concern the parent-child relationship, they cannot be deemed fundamental. Instead, these rights fall
squarely within the ambit of “direct[ing] how a public school teaches [plaintiff’s] child.” Fields, 427 F.3d
at 1206. And plaintiff does not have a fundamental right to direct “what takes place inside the school”
through defendant’s use of the DHP system. Torlakson, 973 F.3d at 1020.
Because the rights plaintiff asserts are not fundamental, defendant’s use of the DHP system need
only be “‘rationally related to legitimate government interests.’” Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep’t of
Labor & Indus., 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 728
(1997)). This standard is clearly satisfied here. Defendant’s use of the DHP system is rationally related to
the legitimate government interests of monitoring students’ attendance, physical location, and class
participation to ensure student safety and general welfare. See Compl. ¶ 19 & Ex. D at 2, 4. Accordingly,
plaintiff has not alleged a violation of his right to substantive due process.
2. Procedural Due Process
Plaintiff also has not adequately alleged a violation of his procedural due process rights. Under the
doctrine of procedural due process, the government may not deprive an individual of a protected property
or liberty interest without providing that individual due process of law. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319,
332 (1976); Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 983 (9th Cir. 1998).
“Once it is determined that due process applies”—i.e., once a protected property or liberty interest has been
identified—“the question remains what process is due.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972).
Unlike a substantive due process claim, a procedural due process claim does not depend on the fundamental
nature of the alleged right. “Rather, procedural due process ‘protects all liberty interests that are derived
from state law or from the Due Process Clause itself.” Regino, 133 F.4th at 967 (quoting Mullins v. Oregon,
57 F.3d 790, 795 (9th Cir. 1995)). Under this framework, the Court must first determine whether plaintiff
has alleged the deprivation of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest. Only then do the
questions of what process was due and whether plaintiff received that process arise.
Here, plaintiff cannot satisfy the first step. Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated his procedural
due process rights by failing to notify, obtain consent from, or provide an opt-out opportunity to him before
collecting data through the DHP system and using those data to initiate student interventions.2 Compl.

2 Plaintiff also reframes his substantive due process argument as a procedural due process claim. See
Compl. ¶ 30 (alleging that plaintiff has “a procedural due process right not to be deprived of” his
¶¶ 31, 33. Plaintiff contends that FERPA and the PPRA only allow defendant to disclose educational
records without parental consent if there is a “legitimate educational interest” in doing so, and that
defendant’s failure to comply with these statutes violated plaintiff’s right to procedural due process. Id.
¶¶ 35-36.
As an initial matter, FERPA does not provide an individually enforceable right. Gonzaga Univ. v.
Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 287 (2002). As such, the Court doubts that a violation of FERPA could support a
procedural due process claim. See Schrader v. Emporia State Univ., No. 19-2387-DDC-TJJ, 2021 WL
4284543, at *8 n.6 (D. Kan. Sept. 21, 2021) (“If there’s no individual right under FERPA, the court fails to
see how a violation of that statute can support a procedural due process claim”); see also Dixon v. Regents
of Univ. of N.M., 242 F.3d 388 (table), 2000 WL 1637557, at *4 n.4 (10th Cir. 2000) (unpublished);
McLaughlin v. Fla. Int’l Univ. Bd. of Trs., 533 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 1171 (S.D. Fla. 2021). Based on the
Supreme Court’s reasoning in Gonzaga University, this Court similarly finds it unlikely that the PPRA
provides an individually enforceable right or that a PPRA violation could support a procedural due process
claim. See 536 U.S. at 280-89.
Even assuming that FERPA and the PPRA could provide a basis for plaintiff’s claim, plaintiff fails
to explain how either FERPA or the PPRA guarantees the liberty interests that plaintiff asserts or how
defendant allegedly violated either of those statutes. The Court first considers FERPA. FERPA may create
a path for plaintiff to access his child’s data, but it does not require defendant to notify parents when it
creates an education record or to proactively permit access to the DHP system. See generally 20 U.S.C.
§ 1232g; see also Compl. ¶ 13C (“When Plaintiff initially asserted that DHP data was inaccessible to
parents, the District disagreed—presumably because a parent could request such data under FERPA.”).
Further, FERPA permits disclosure of education records without the written consent of students’ parents to
“other school officials, including teachers within the educational institution or local educational agency,

“substantive liberty interest in directing the care, custody, and upbringing of” his child “without adequate
notice and opportunity to respond”). This argument rises and falls with plaintiff’s substantive due process
argument. Accordingly, this argument fails for the same reasons as the substantive due process claim.
who have been determined by such agency or institution to have legitimate educational interests, including
the educational interests of the child for whom consent would otherwise be required.” 20 U.S.C.
§ 1232g(b)(1)(A); see 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(a)(1)(i)(A). Defendant has determined that certain groups of staff
members have legitimate educational interests and explains why these staff have access to data in the DHP
system based on their job responsibilities. Compl. Ex. D at 1. Plaintiff argues that many of these staff have
“no educational relationship” to the students being monitored. Compl. ¶ 41. But this conclusion is not
supported by the allegations, and the Court has no reason to doubt defendant’s determination.
As to the PPRA, that statute requires the consent of a student’s parent before the student is
“required . . . to submit to a survey, analysis, or evaluation” that reveals certain information, including, in
relevant part, the “mental or psychological problems of the student or the student’s family.” 20 U.S.C.
§ 1232h(b)(2). However, submission of information that is not protected by the PPRA does not violate the
PPRA. See, e.g., Doe No. 1 v. Bethel Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 3:22-cv-337, 2023 WL 5018511, at
*22 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 7, 2023), appeal docketed, No. 23-3740 (6th Cir. Sept. 8, 2023).
Plaintiff argues that the DHP system is a survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals a student’s
mental or psychological problems. But plaintiff overstates how the DHP system functions. The DHP
system requires students to log into StudentVUE, click “Request a Hall Pass,” and then select a destination
and duration. Compl. ¶ 12 & Ex. B, at 3-5. This cannot be said to constitute a survey, analysis, or evaluation
under the PPRA. Cf. Doe No. 1, 2023 WL 5018511, at *22 (finding that requiring a student to read books
does not qualify as an attitudinal survey); Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area Sch.
Dist., Wisc., 657 F. Supp. 3d 1161, 1175 (W.D. Wisc. 2023) (finding that the plaintiff did not sufficiently
allege that the defendants “required any child to submit to any type of survey, analysis, or evaluation in
conjunction with” the challenged conduct). Additionally, the DHP system does not request information
that is protected under the PPRA. The fact that a school’s BHWT may later review the data as part of
determining whether students need additional support does not mean that the information itself reveals any
“mental or psychological problems of [a] student.” 20 U.S.C. § 1232h(b)(2).
Plaintiff also analogizes to two out-of-Circuit cases; neither command a different outcome. First,
plaintiff alleges that the Third Circuit held that “parental due process rights are implicated when schools
collect personal information from students without notice, consent, or opt-out options” in C.N. v.
Ridgewood Board of Education, 430 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2005). Compl. ¶ 33. In C.N., the plaintiffs were
three students and their mothers, who together argued that public school district officials violated the
plaintiffs’ rights under FERPA, the PPRA, and the U.S. Constitution by administering an anonymous
survey that solicited “information about students’ drug and alcohol use, sexual activity, experience of
physical violence, attempts at suicide, personal associations and relationships (including the parental
relationship), and views on matters of public interest.” 430 F.3d at 161. C.N. thus involved both a survey
and protected data—neither of which are at issue here.
The second case plaintiff cites is Rhoades v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, 574 F.
Supp. 2d 888 (N.D. Ind. 2008). Relying on this authority, plaintiff asserts that “[w]here the government
makes behavioral assessments and initiates quasi-clinical action, procedural due process is required.” Pl.
Resp. 5. In Rhoades, the plaintiffs argued that their constitutional and statutory rights were violated when
school officials administered a psychological assessment without parental consent. 574 F. Supp. 2d at 889-
90. Not only was the assessment a bonified survey, but the administrators also used its results to diagnose
students with psychiatric disorders. Id. at 892. Again, that is a far cry from the allegations here.
Ultimately, the character of the intrusion into the limited privacy interest here is relatively minimal:
in essence, students are merely informing their teachers where they need to go and for how long. Although
the DHP system stores the data, the data does not “lead to the imposition of discipline or have any academic
consequences[,]” Bd of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cnty. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 833
(2002); to the contrary, a school’s BHWT reviews the data as part of determining whether it can provide
any additional support to certain students, Compl. Ex. D at 4. Moreover, defendant has legitimate
government interests in recording class attendance, increasing the amount of time students are spending in
class learning, maintaining a safe educational environment for students and employees, and monitoring
students’ whereabouts on campus in case of an emergency. In this context, defendant’s use of the DHP
system is a reasonable means of furthering its important interests in maintaining a safe educational
environment for its students.
Because plaintiff does not allege a protected interest to which due process protections attach, he
does not state a claim for violation of his procedural due process rights.
B. Claim Under ORS § 336.187
Plaintiff next alleges that defendant’s use of the DHP system violates ORS § 336.187. Compl.
¶¶ 39-40. ORS § 336.187 requires school districts to disclose students’ personally identifiable information
(“PII”) or other information allowed to be disclosed under FERPA in two situations. See Or. Rev. Stat.
§ 336.187 (requiring disclosure of protected information (1) in certain circumstances “in connection with a
health or safety emergency” and (2) in certain circumstances to “[c]ourts and state and local juvenile justice
agencies”). Plaintiff’s ORS § 336.187 claim fails for two reasons.
First, ORS § 336.187 does not create a private right of action. A statute may create a private right
of action either expressly or impliedly. Deckard v. Bunch, 358 Or. 754, 759, 370 P.3d 478 (2016).
“Whether a statute does so is a question of statutory interpretation.” Doyle v. City of Medford, 356 Or. 336,
344, 377 P.3d 797 (2014) (cleaned up). To answer this question, courts consider “the text, context, or
legislative history of the statute creating the duty.” Id. at 345. Here, the text of ORS § 336.187 plainly
does not create a private right of action. No portion of the statute refers to civil liability. As to context and
legislative history, plaintiff has not pointed to any context or legislative history indicating that ORS
§ 336.187 creates either an express or implied private right of action, and the Court is not aware of any. No
portion of ORS Chapter 336 provides an umbrella of civil liability for the entirety of the chapter. See
generally Or. Rev. Stat. ch. 336. Without a private right of action, plaintiff’s ORS § 336.187 claim is a
non-starter.
Second, even if a private right of action did exist under ORS § 336.187, none of plaintiff’s
allegations reflect a failure to disclose relevant information under the two circumstances described in the
statute. Accordingly, plaintiff has not stated a claim under ORS § 336.187.
//
//
C. Oregon Constitutional Claims
1. Article I, section 9
Assuming without deciding that plaintiff has standing to bring his Article I, section 9 claim, the
Court concludes that plaintiff’s Article I, section 9 claim fails. Article I, section 9 “establishes a right of
the people ‘to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or
seizure.’” State v. Fulmer, 366 Or. 224, 229, 460 P.3d 486 (2020) (en banc) (quoting State v.
Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or. 610, 621, 227 P.3d 695 (2010)). “For purposes of Article I, section 9, a search
occurs only if governmental action invades ‘a protected privacy interest.’” State v. Newcomb, 359 Or. 756,
764, 375 P.3d 434 (2016) (quoting State v. Wacker, 317 Or. 419, 426, 856 P.2d 1029 (1993)). “‘[T]he
privacy protected by Article I, section 9, is not the privacy that one reasonably expects but the privacy to
which one has a right.’” Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting State v. Campbell, 306 Or. 157, 164, 759 P.2d
1040 (1988)). To challenge a search as violating Article I, section 9, an individual must assert that their
personal rights were violated, as distinguished from someone else’s rights. State v. Johnson, 153 Or. App.
535, 538 n.1, 958 P.2d 887 (1998) (en banc).
Here, plaintiff alleges that Article I, section 9 “protects . . . students . . . from unreasonable searches
and informational intrusions by government actors.” Compl. ¶ 39. In his response to defendant’s motion,
plaintiff argues that “[t]he DHP system constitutes a form of informational surveillance” that “collects,
stores, and shares data about students’ personal movements, behaviors, and inferred needs, often without a
legitimate educational interest.” Pl. Resp. 26. Plaintiff complains that because he “cannot access this data
and is not informed about how it is used,” his rights under Article I, section 9 have been violated. Id.
Plaintiff’s claim under Article I, section 9 fails. Plaintiff bases his Article I, section 9 claim on allegations
that the DHP system collects and stores behavioral data of students in the District, including plaintiff’s
child. But that data is the students’—not plaintiff’s. Plaintiff thus cannot assert a personal privacy right
over that data and, accordingly, plaintiff cannot challenge the DHP system under Article I, section 9.
2. Article I, section 10
Finally, plaintiff’s claim under Article I, section 10 also fails. Plaintiff generally alleges that
“Article I, [s]ection 10 guarantees the right to a legal remedy for injury caused by unlawful actions.”
Compl. ¶ 39. Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s actions are unlawful under ORS §§ 336.184(3)(a) and
336.187(1), which together “impose clear obligations on school districts to protect student data, restrict
access to individuals with a legitimate educational interest, and provide annual parental notices that explain
how student information will be collected, used, and shared.” Id. (citing Fazzolari v. Portland Sch. Dist.
No. 1J, 303 Or. 1, 17-20, 734 P.2d 1326 (1987)). Plaintiff concludes that “[b]y expanding the system
without transparency, public input, or adherence to the data governance provisions in ORS [§] 336.184, the
District has denied Plaintiff a remedy in violation of Article I, [s]ection 10.” Id. ¶ 41.
To begin, as discussed above, plaintiff has not alleged facts showing any violation of ORS § 187.
This statute thus cannot serve as the basis for plaintiff’s Article I, section 10 claim. The Court finds the
same to be true of ORS § 336.184. First and foremost, plaintiff has withdrawn his claim under ORS
§ 336.184. Pl. Resp. 3. Thus, plaintiff does not allege any violation of ORS § 336.184. Without a violation,
plaintiff identifies no legal basis for his Article I, section 10 claim. Second, ORS § 336.184, like ORS
§ 336.187, does not provide for either an express or implied private right of action.3 This separately dooms
plaintiff’s claim. Third, even assuming ORS § 336.184 could serve as the basis of plaintiff’s Article I,
section 10 claim, plaintiff’s allegations do not show any violation of that statute. ORS § 336.184 prohibits
“operator[s]” of Internet websites from disclosing Oregon students’ “personally identifiable information or
materials” except under certain circumstances. Or. Rev. Stat. § 336.184(2)(a); id. § 336.184(2)(c); id.
§ 336.184(3)(a)(E). Plaintiff does not allege that defendant is an “operator” to whom ORS § 336.184’s
prohibitions apply. This again is an independent basis to deny plaintiff’s Article I, section 10 claim. For
all of these reasons, plaintiff’s claim under Article I, section 10 fails.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF 19, is GRANTED. Because
this is the first motion to dismiss addressed in this case and it is not “absolutely clear that no amendment

3 The same analysis applies to both statutes.
can cure the defect[s]” identified herein, Garity, 828 F.3d at 854, and in light of the leniency owed to
plaintiff as a self-represented litigant, the Court grants plaintiff thirty (30) days to file a second amended
complaint. If no amended complaint is filed, this action will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 17th day of April, 2026.

Adrienne Nelson
United States District Judge

16

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11317460. Public record. Not legal advice.