DiWann Mathis and Marketa Mathis v. Freire Charter School

Civil Action No. 25-805-CFC · United States District Court for the District of Delaware · December 22, 2025 · No. Civil Action No. 25-805-CFC

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted Freire Charter School’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss claims brought by DiWann Mathis and Marketa Mathis under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Delaware law. The court held that the plaintiffs did not allege a cognizable McKinney-Vento claim because the alleged homelessness occurred after their relocation to Florida, and that their intentional infliction of emotional distress allegations were conclusory and insufficiently detailed.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
Writing for the Court
Colm F. Connolly
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
Decision date
December 22, 2025
Docket number
Civil Action No. 25-805-CFC
Procedural posture
Plaintiffs brought claims under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Delaware law. Defendant moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the claims.
Standard of review
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts well-pleaded allegations as true, views them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determines whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief. Pro se pleadings are liberally construed, but conclusory labels and formulaic recitations are not credited.
Precedential value
unknown
Parties
DiWann Mathis, Marketa Mathis v. Freire Charter School
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

motions to dismisscivil rightsstatutory interpretationabsurdity doctrineintentional infliction of emotional distress

Practice areas

civil procedurecivil rightsstatutory interpretationintentional infliction of emotional distress

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiffs stated a cognizable claim under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act based on Freire's failure to provide remote education after Plaintiffs relocated to Florida.
  2. Whether Plaintiffs plausibly alleged the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Delaware law.
  3. Whether the complaint satisfied the pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Holdings

  1. Plaintiffs failed to state a cognizable McKinney-Vento claim because they alleged homelessness only after relocating to Florida and did not allege that Freire denied their children access to a free and appropriate public education while they lived in Delaware. The Act's obligations are limited to homeless children and youths found within the relevant state, so any obligations during the alleged Florida homelessness belonged to Florida rather than Delaware.
  2. Plaintiffs failed to state an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim because they did not plausibly allege extreme and outrageous conduct, the requisite intent or reckless disregard, or severe emotional distress caused by the conduct. Their allegations concerning emails threatening truancy and grade retention and their conclusory assertion of significant emotional distress were insufficient.
  3. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was proper because, accepting the well-pleaded allegations as true and construing the pro se complaint liberally, Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on either remaining claim.

Key quotations

It cannot be the case that Congress intended that, as a condition of accepting federal funding for its schools, Delaware is required to ensure that all homeless children living in all the other 49 states have equal access to the education that Delaware provides to the children who reside in Delaware. (at 10)
Their unsupported conclusions do not state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Delaware law. (at 12)

Factual background

Plaintiffs and their two minor children formerly lived in Wilmington, Delaware, where the children attended Freire Charter School. After losing their residence and temporarily living in a Wilmington commercial property, Plaintiffs relocated to Florida in March 2025 and stayed in hotels and Airbnb accommodations while seeking remote education from Freire. Plaintiffs alleged that Freire refused to provide remote learning and sent emails threatening truancy proceedings and grade retention, causing financial and emotional distress.

Procedural history

The court had previously dismissed claims brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of their minor children because a nonattorney parent proceeding pro se cannot represent or bring claims on behalf of a minor child. The court considered Defendant's motion to dismiss the remaining McKinney-Vento and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims and granted the motion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…