# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Smith v. Stoneking

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_0609%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 1990
- **Citation:** 493 U.S. 1044

## Text

89-780

, U.S,
| FILED
No. | NOV 14 1389
IN THE SUPREME COURT JOSEPH P. SPANIOL, 5M

OF THE UNITED STATES

3 7 a

FREDERICK SMITH, in his individual and official
capacity as Principal Bradford Area High School;
RICHARD MILLER, in his individual and official
Capacity as assistant principal of the Bradford
High School; and FREDERICK SHUEY, in his
individual and official capacity as Superintendent
of the Bradford Area School District
Petitioners
vs

KATHLEEN STONEKING
= Respondent
On Writ of Certiorari
to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Kenneth D. Chestek

Murphy, Taylor, Trout & Chestek, P.C.
518 State Street

Erie, Pennsylvania 16501

(814) 459-0234

James D. McDonald, Jr.
The McDonald Group
456 West Sixth Street
Erie, Pennsylvania 16507
(814) 456-5318

Attorneys for Petitioners

I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED

_A. Are school students “at liberty” so that, under
the rationale of this Court in DeShaney v. Winnebago
County there exists no duty under the Fourteenth Amend-
ment for school administrators to protect them from
criminal assaults?

B. Was there clearly established law in 1979 that
schoo! administrators had a duty under the Fourteenth
Amendment to protect school students from criminal
assaults?

C. Can this Court’s holding in City of Canton v.
Harris that municipal bodies may be held accountable for
a policy amounting t» “deliberate indifference” to the
rights of citizens be extended to create a new theory ot
personal liability for municipal officials?

wile

Il. TABLE OF CONTENTS

eS yy eG | oy | i i

NM EEEIO ED scp c tsa cencssene iil

Ray 8 Be ae tay. 8 ig) | > ee v

ee 8. Ge | Rr l

A. Procedural History of This Case ... 1

B. pucented Proceeding ............ 2

V. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ......... 5
V1. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

AND STATUTES INVOLVED ..... 7

A. Constitutional Provisions ........... 7

Se a ee 7

II As x ccs cnc nccccecccs 8

VI. STATEMENT OF CASE ...........--- 9

Ne oe ig og bic ek «04.6 0-0-0 0 0:8 1]

A. Summary of Argument .......... 11

B. The Court of Appeals Failed to
Resolve the Question Posed by This
Fee ea 12

l. The Court of Appeals opin-
ion conflicts with Supreme

Court precedemt .......5.

tw

The Court of Appeals opinion
conflicts with rulings in other
a are Te ee eee

3. The Court of Appeals opinion
conflicts with other rulings of
3 er ee

&. Smith, Miller and Shuey Are Entitled
to Qualified Immunity ..........

D. The Court of Appeals Has Improper-
ly Applied the Principles of Munici-
pal Liability Under City of Canton to
Individual Defendants ..........

ae ee 8 Beer ere roe COR eee

-iv-

16

17

i9

iil. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Constitutional Provisions

United States Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1. 7

Cases
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) ....... 19

City of Canton v. Harris, 109 S.Ct. 1197 (1989) . 11, 23,
24, 28

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social
Services, 489 U.S. , 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) .. 2, 3, 11-14,

17-19, 24
Doe v. Bobbitt, 881 F.2d 510 (7th Cir. 1989) ...... 17
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) ..... 19, 21
Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) ......... 16

Milburn v. Anne Arundel County Department of Social
Services, 871 F.2d 474 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied 1989
US. Lee SieP COUOOD bbw ceweeae hen ee eee 17

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) .... 5, 13, 20

Philadelphia Police and Fire Association for Handicapped
Children, Inc., et al v. City of Philadelphia, 874 F.2d 156
tot eS, | eer er ere er er 17, 19, 26

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) .... 11, 23, 26-28

1

Smith v. Sowers, No. 88-1350, United States Supreme Co

Sowers \. Bradford Area School District et al., C.A. No. 88-
$7 Erie, United States District Court for the Western
aMewict of Penmptvania «osc cvcsesestwhwens 2

Sowers \. Bradford Area School District et al., No. 88-3640

in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
COUR .ccccctsene cau sewn eeeaee 2, 3, 22

Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, (1982) 2.2... 22

Statutes and Rules

8 TOLBA GIST civicecnbaccetene 8. 14
8 USL. § 1A 2 cccccav eaves day of
November, 1989.

OO)

Kenai y Aijs-

Kenneth D. Chestek, Esq.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_0609%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.