Opposition — Mareno ex rel. Mareno v. Walker

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1979

No, 79-1936

ANTONIO MARENO, JR., A MINOR OF 16 YEARS OF AGE

8Y HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, KATHLENE C. MARENO,

Petitioner,

Vs.

JAMES W. WALKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRINCIPAL

OF LAKELAND SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL, SHRUB OAK, NEW

YORK, AND ROBERT F. WILLIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND

AS A SUBSTITUTE HOMEROOM TEACHER IN LAKELAND

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL, SHRUB OAK, NEW YORK,

Respondents.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

RESPONDENTS’ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

MURRAY STEYER

STEYER & SIROTA, ESQS.

Attorneys for Respondents

235 MAIN STREET

WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 10601

(914) 428-7600

COUNSEL PRESS, INC., 55 West 42nd Street, New York, N.Y. 10036 @ (212) 391-6622

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Question Presented. .....

Statement of the Case. ....

ARGUMENT

The Decisions Below Were

Clearly Correct, and There

is no Ground Whatsoever

for the Granting of

~~~ « « «© 6» © © © e

The Judgment Below Was

in Complete Accord with

the Decisions of this

Rae 6 © ew ew ew ew ew 8 le

Conclusion. . . « + « « © « »

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S.

RU SM gee ng ge pate ty ge gale

chapiinsky v New Hampshire, 315

U.S. PEE Shits o58 hs ote gS

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S.

Wg De ee ee eee we i ee

Fenton v. Stear, 423 F. Supp

707 (W.D. Pa. 1976) . . «© « « © «© 647

Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 ..... 8

Thomas v. Board of Ed., Granville

Cent. Sch. Dist., 607 F.2d 1043

(2nd Cir., 1979), cert. den., 48

L.W. 3536 (2/19/80) . . «© « « « «e « 8

Thonen v. Jenkins, 491 ?.2a 722

C4 Bot gee.) SR ee

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent

—— ——

Community School District,

wens 7 - . + © 7 8

Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S.

, / « . ° 7 . * > . . ° 5

Statutes:

42 Wemuce §1983 * - +. o 7 . - — . >

Education Law of the State of

ew Tek se ee Ce Se a ow CS

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1979

ANTONIO MARENO, Jr., a minor 16 years of

age, by his mother and next friend,

Kathlene C. Mareno,

Petitioner,

vs.

JAMES M. WALKER, individually and as

Principal of Lakeland Senior High School,

Shrub Oak, New York, and ROBERT F. WILLIS,

individually and as a Substitute Homeroom

Teacher in Lakeland Senior High School,

Shrub Oak, New York,

Respondents.

QUESTION PRESENTED

The sole question on this appeal is:

Whether the suspension of a second year

high school student from class for one day,

pursuant to the express regulations of the

Board of Education of the school and the

New York Education Law, for calling his

teacher a "prick" on school premises

"rose to the level of a violation of a

specific constitutional guarantee," so as

to create a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.

§1983.

The petitioner's "Questions Presented”

are spurious and have no relation to the

facts or the decisions below.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The judgment sought to be reviewed

affirmed a summary judgment of the United

States District Court for the Southern

District of New York against the petitioner,

a high school sophomore, in an action brought

by him against his principal and homeroom

teacher, purportedly pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§1983. The action was based upon a one

day suspension of the petitioner from

class, for the admitted use of profane and

abusive language on the school's premises.

Petitioner arrived late at his classroom

on the morning of January 5, 1979, and the

teacher, Willis, directed him to obtain a

late pass from the Dean's office - as, to

petitioner's knowledge, was customarily

required (3, 14, 20-21).* Willis abruptly

closed the classroom door, and petitioner

thereupon called Willis a "prick" (19, 48-

49). Petitioner obtained a pass, returned,

was admitted to the classroom, and was

allowed to stay "to the end of the class"

(18, 49). Willis then asked petitioner to

* Unless otherwise indicated, numbers in

parentheses refer to pages in the Joint

Appendix.

3

go with him to the Dean's office (14-15, 18,

49).

The school principal, as alleged in

petitioner's complaint, "imposed a one day

suspension from school upon [petitioner]* *

* for the use of 'foul language' in

violation of the established school rule

against the use of profanity or abusive

language [student handbook]'" (4-5, 15).

As is also conceded in the complaint (2-3),

the pertinent sections of the Education

Law of the State of New York empowered the

school board "to establish rules and

regulations concerning the order and

discipline of the schools," and "to

suspend students from school who are

insubordinate or disorderly."

The school's notice of suspension,

signed by both the Dean and the principal,

was sent to petitioner's father, and it

offered him "an informal conference" if he

desired (34). Thereafter, the principal

reminded petitioner's father that there

had been two telephone conversations with

him, in which the reason for the suspension

has been explained (37). The principal also

stated that, although the father had

"requested no hearing at that time," the

4

principal "will be most happy to meet with

[him] on Wednesday or Thursday morning of

this week" (Id.).

Apparently, petitioner's father never

accepted the invitation, anc the principal

wrote him that he (the principal) had

completed his review and had "determined

that our school procedures are in compliance

with district policy and regulations issued

by the State Commissioner of Education" (38).

The principal, nevertheless, expressed a

desire for "mutual cooperation in helping

[petitioner] along a successful path" (Id.).

The district court, in granting defendant's

motion for summary judgment, held:

"mere disciplinary acts of a

school administrator or faculty

member are not matters for a

federal court's review absent

evidence of conduct which rises

to the level of violation of

specific constitutional

guarantees." (50)

The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed

that judgment (Petition, Appendix C).

5

ARGUMENT

THE DECISIONS BELOW WERE CLEARLY

CORRECT, AND THERE IS NO GROUND

WHATSOEVER FOR THE GRANTING OF

CERTIORARI

The Judgment Below Was

In Complete Accord With

The Decisions Of This Court

In the leading case of Wood Vv.

Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 326 (1975), this

Court held:

"It is not the role of the federal

courts to set aside decisions of

school administrators which the

court may view as lacking a basis

in wisdom or compassion. * * *

",. .§1983 does not extend the right

to relitigate in federal court

evidentiary questions arising in

school disciplinary proceedings or

the proper construction of school

regulations. The system of public

education that has evolved in this

Nation was not intended to be a

vehicle for federal court correction

of errors in the exercise of that

discretion which do not rise to the

level of violations of specific

constitutional guarantees."

In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97,

104 (1968), the Court similarly held:

"Courts do not and cannot intervene

in the resolution of conflicts

which arise in the daily operation

of school systems and which do not

directly and sharply implicate

6

basic constitutional values."

It is actually unnecessary to invoke the

doctrine of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315

U.S. 568 (1942), upon which the petition

extensively, but irrelevantly, discourses

(pp. 12-16), but that decision does afford

additional support for the judgment below.

It held:

"the lewd and obscene, the profane,

the libelous, and the insulting

or 'fighting' words * * * are no

essential part of any exposition

of ideas, and are of such slight

social value as a step to truth

that any benefit that may be

derived from them is clearly

outweighed by the social interest

in order and morality....."

(pp. 571-72).

This principle is all the more applicable

in the instant case, where the profane

insult was uttered by a high school student

to his teacher on school premises, and his

sole grievance is that he was suspended from

Class for the minimum period of one day, in

accordance with established school

regulations.

Fenton v. Stear, 423 F. Supp 767 (W.D.

Pa. 1976), also discussed in the petition

(p. 12 et seg.), is precisely in point, and