United States District Court, D. Connecticut
EMILY DOE, by and through her PARENTS and NEXT FRIENDS, JANE and JOHN DOE, Plaintiff,
v.
ENFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION, JEFFREY SCHUMANN, CONNEL CLARK, ANDREW LONGEY, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 31)
Kari
A. Dooley, United States District Judge
Statement
of the Case
This
action arises out of an assault on the minor Plaintiff at
Enfield High School. The assault occurred during the school
day and was perpetrated by a fellow student. The Plaintiff,
by and through her parents and next friends, Jane and John
Doe, brought this action against the Enfield Board of
Education, Superintendent Jeffrey Schumann, Principal Andrew
Longey and Vice Principal Connel Clark. The individual
Defendants are sued in both their individual and official
capacities. The Plaintiff brings five claims against the
Defendants, though only two of those claims are implicated in
the instant Motion to Dismiss - the Fourteenth Amendment
Substantive Due Process claims set forth in Counts One and
Two. Previously, the Court (Hall, J.),
[1]
dismissed these claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6),
finding that the allegations did not meet the rigorous
criteria for establishing a substantive due process claim.
(ECF No. 25, Ruling Re: Motion to Dismiss
(“Ruling”) at 19, 23.) The Court permitted the
Plaintiff to replead, however, if she believed that there
existed sufficient facts to state a plausible Fourteenth
Amendment claim. (Id.) The Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint on July 11, 2018. (ECF No. 29.) On August
9, 2018, the Defendants renewed their motion to dismiss on
the grounds that the Amended Complaint does not cure the
deficiencies identified by the Court in dismissing the
original Complaint and because the Plaintiff has not set
forth sufficient facts to plausibly state a Fourteenth
Amendment Substantive Due Process claim under these
circumstances. (ECF No. 31.) The Court heard oral argument on
January 24, 2019. For the reasons that follow, the renewed
motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Facts
The
Court sets forth below the facts alleged at the time the
Court dismissed the original claims. They are taken directly
from the Court's prior ruling.[2]
At the time of the events that are the subject of the
Complaint, Emily Doe was a 14-year-old student at Enfield
High School. See Compl. at ¶ 9. She had special
education needs due to her mental disabilities, including a
diagnosis or history of Attention Deficit Disorder, Anxiety
Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder, and Mixed Expressive and
Receptive Language Disorder. See Compl. at ¶
10. Student A was another student at Enfield High School, who
was committed to the Department of Children and Families
(“DCF”) and who the Complaint alleges had a
history of aggressive behavior and a propensity for sexual
violence about which the defendants knew or should have
known. See id. at ¶¶ 13-14.
On November 11, 2015, Student A called Doe at home and told
her that he wanted to take her virginity. See id. at
¶ 17. He asked her if he could do it the next day, and
Doe said no. See id. The next day at school, in a
public location that was observed or observable by the
defendants, Student A told Doe to follow him. See
id. at ¶ 19. Although she did not want to, Doe
followed him, and he led her to a hallway in the school's
basement that was undergoing construction. See id.
at ¶ 23.
The Complaint alleges that the defendants and their agents
failed to block access to the area under construction or
otherwise ensure that the hallway did not become a dangerous
location that could be used by students for acts of
misconduct. See id. at ¶ 21. The Complaint
further alleges that the defendants and their agents observed
or should have observed that Student A brought Doe to an
unsafe location where she was not scheduled to be at that
time. See id. at ¶ 23.
Student A then dragged Doe into the boys' bathroom and
raped her in one of the stalls. See id. at
¶¶ 24-25. The Complaint alleges that Vice Principal
Clark was or should have been in the proximity where this
occurred but failed to timely respond. See id. at
¶¶ 25-26. Vice Principal Clark opened the door to
the bathroom after the assault had occurred and asked who was
in the boys' bathroom. See id. at ¶¶
28-29. Doe wanted to yell out but felt threatened by Student
A not to tell Vice Principal Clark what was happening.
See id. at ¶ 29. Doe exited the stall and, when
Vice Principal Clark asked why she was there, she answered
that she had to use the bathroom and must have walked into
the wrong one. See id. at ¶¶ 30-31. Vice
Principal Clark then sent her back to class. See id.
at ¶ 31.
Doe told two friends what had happened when she returned to
class, and she was called to Principal Longey's office.
See id. at ¶¶ 32-33. She told Vice
Principal Clark and Principal Longey about the sexual
assault. See id. at ¶ 33. Administrators then
contacted the police, and Doe was brought by her mother to
Connecticut Children's Medical Center for sexual assault
evaluation. See id. at ¶ 34. The construction
area in the basement was closed off from student access
starting November 24, 2015. See id. at ¶ 35.
A report was filed anonymously with DCF, alleging inadequate
supervision at the school. See id. at ¶ 36. DCF
conducted an investigation, but closed the matter without
findings of neglect, stating that Principal Longey and Vice
Principal Clark addressed the situation swiftly after the
incident. See id. at ¶ 38. The Complaint
alleges, however, that DCF did not conduct a thorough
investigation. See id. The Complaint further alleges
that Doe suffered severe emotional distress as a result of
the incident. See id.
(Ruling at 2 - 4.)
In the
Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff includes the following
additional allegations regarding Emily Doe, Student A, and
the conduct of the Defendants. As to Emily Doe, the Plaintiff
alleges that at the time of the assault her functional age
was approximately 11.2 years and her IQ was 80. With respect
to Student A, the Plaintiff alleges, because he was
“not a resident of Enfield, he was not entitled to
attend Enfield Public Schools.” The Plaintiff alleges
that “Student A had a history of drug use and of
dealing drugs, as well as a history of arrests for criminal
conduct.” As to the Defendants, the Plaintiff alleges
that the Board “knowingly permitted Student A to attend
Enfield High School.” The Plaintiff further alleges
that the Defendants allowed Student A to “remain in a
general education setting, despite prior assaults and other
criminal misconduct, without any restrictions or increased
supervision.” The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
“affirmatively removed protections required under Board
and school policies, such as supervision of the school
hallways and working security cameras, that were put in place
to protect students from danger, including Student A's
propensity for misconduct.” The Plaintiff alleges that
“[a]t the time of the attack, the Defendants had
disabled the security cameras looking over the hallway
outside the entrance to the aforementioned boys'
bathroom.” Finally, as to Clark specifically, the
Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he area where Student A
dragged Emily Doe into the boys' bathroom was part of
Defendant Connel Clark's assigned hall duty area”;
that Clark “had willfully abandoned the area by the
boys' bathroom, and/or willfully ignored signs that
Student A was bringing Emily to the isolated location”;
that Clark, at the time of the attack, entered, exited, and
then reentered the boys' bathroom, “observ[ing] the
two students in the same stall” and “ask[ing] why
Emily was in the boys' bathroom in a manner that
suggested that she had engaged in misconduct”; and that
Clark “failed to assess Emily's safety, and instead
suggested she was to blame for being in the bathroom, despite
that he knew or should have known that Student A had a
history of misconduct, and despite that he knew or should
have known that Emily was a vulnerable student.” The
Plaintiff alleges that “Clark created a danger in which
Student A isolated the plaintiff and raped her.” The
Plaintiff further alleges that Clark subsequently “made
contradictory statements about what he saw when in the
boys' bathroom that morning.”
Discussion
The
Court does not reiterate the well-established standard for
reviewing pleadings under Rule 8(a) as discussed in
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,5556 U.S. 662 (2009) and its
progeny. Neither, with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment
Due Process claim, does the Court reinvent the proverbial
wheel. Judge Hall's decision thoroughly and accurately
set forth the ...