Garry Teixeira, individually and as guardian on behalf of Jane Doe and John Doe v. Prince George’s County Board of Education, Lakeisha Strother, in her official capacity and individual capacity, and Jane/John Does

Summary

This is a memorandum opinion from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland concerning claims arising from repeated bullying and assaults of two students at a public middle school and on a school bus. The court addresses claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and Maryland tort law, including negligent supervision. The court grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss; the excerpt states that the federal constitutional and state constitutional claims are dismissed, while the negligent-supervision analysis proceeds.

Holdings

1. The amended complaint failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim because it did not allege that Strother or other school personnel conducted a search or seizure of either child or the children’s property. The alleged seizure of Jane Doe’s possessions by students did not implicate the Fourth Amendment because the students were not state actors.
2. The amended complaint failed to state a substantive due process claim against Strother because the alleged failures to prevent, investigate, or deter bullying were omissions rather than affirmative acts that created or increased the danger to the children.
3. The Articles 24 and 26 claims failed for the same reasons as the corresponding federal due process and Fourth Amendment claims.
4. The amended complaint plausibly alleged negligent supervision against the Board, and the motion to dismiss Count 4 was denied.
5. The amended complaint failed to plausibly allege that the Board’s or Strother’s inaction constituted intentional or reckless, extreme, and outrageous conduct, so Count 5 was dismissed.
6. The amended complaint failed to state an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim because the assault and recording occurred in a public school cafeteria rather than a private place or seclusion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment violation based on school personnel’s conduct.
2. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process violation under the state-created-danger or special-relationship theories.
3. Whether the Maryland Declaration of Rights claims under Articles 24 and 26 were adequately pleaded.
4. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged negligent supervision against the school board.
5. Whether the alleged inaction by school personnel plausibly constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress.
6. Whether recording and publicly posting a video of an assault in a school cafeteria plausibly constituted intrusion upon seclusion.

Disposition

other