# Payne ex rel. D.P. v. Peninsula School District

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 3, 2015 · 623 F. App'x 846

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8678545

## Case

- **Full name:** Windy PAYNE, individually and as guardian on behalf of D.P., a minor child v. PENINSULA SCHOOL DISTRICT, and Jodi Coy
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 3, 2015
- **Citations:** 623 F. App'x 846
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Friedland, Nguyen, Zouhary
- **Cited by:** 4 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/8678545

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding qualified immunity applied where teacher placed autistic student in prolonged seclusions as a punishment and had student assist in cleaning up after he defecated ip the seclusion room

## Opinion text

MEMORANDUM **
Jodi Coy appeals the district court’s denial of summary judgment and qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Reviewing de novo, Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. Of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175 , 1179 (9th Cir.2007), we reverse. The case is remanded for further proceedings on Plaintiffs remaining Mo-nell and state law claims.
Coy is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim because, at the time she acted, it would not have been clear to a *848 reasonable official that placing D.P. in the safe room, as part of his aversive and behavioral intervention plan, was an unconstitutional seizure. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 , 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2083-85 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011); Couture v. Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Schs., 535 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir.2008); Wash. Admin. Code § 392-172-394 (2005).
Likewise, Coy is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment claim because, at the time Coy acted, it would not have been clear to a reasonable official that having D.P. assist in cleaning up after he defecated in the safe room violated D.P.’s substantive due process rights. See Harris v. Robinson, 273 F.3d 927, 931-32 (10th Cir. 2001).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8678545. Public record. Not legal advice.