Schools & School Boards – Constitutional – Substantive Due Process – Student Discipline

Crittenden v. Florence School District One (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-065-17, 13 pp.) (R. Bryan Harwell, J.) 4:16-cv-02014; D.S.C.

Holding: Where the plaintiff-parent alleges that the defendant-school district did not have adequate training and procedures in place to handle students with behavioral issues, or if it did, those policies were not enforced or adequately explained to its employees, plaintiff’s allegations against the district are sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The court grants defendants Isaiah and Johnson’s motion to dismiss. The court grants the defendant-school district’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim based on the Eighth Amendment but denies the motion as to plaintiff’s substantive due process claim.

Defendants Isaiah and Johnson were school district employees who allegedly witnessed a third school district employee, nonmovant defendant McIntosh, physically assault plaintiff’s minor child. As to Isaiah and Johnson, plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to make a prima facie case that these two defendants did anything more than fail to intervene as to the conduct allegedly done by co-defendant McIntosh. This type of passive behavior does not meet the standard for finding state-created danger for constitutional-level liability, particularly when the complaint provides that these two defendant teachers allegedly witnessed the one episode.

Defendants Isaiah and Johnson were not alleged to be in any supervisor role over co-defendant McIntosh. Further, the allegations against these defendants do not meet the shock-the-conscience standard. Thus, the substantive due process violation claim brought pursuant to § 1983 against defendants Isaiah and Johnson is dismissed.

Finally, when public school administrators impose disciplinary corporal punishment, the Eighth Amendment does not apply.

Motion granted in part and denied in part.