John Doe 2 v. Nash County Board of Education; Marquis Johnson, individually and as an employee of Nash County Board of Education

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina considers the Nash County Board of Education’s motion to dismiss claims arising from alleged sexual abuse of a student by a teacher. The court holds that the plaintiff plausibly stated claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title IX, and the North Carolina Constitution, but concludes that the plaintiff abandoned his state-law tort claims, which are dismissed. The motion to dismiss is therefore granted in part and denied in part.

Holdings

1. The complaint plausibly alleged a Monell claim against the Nash County Board of Education by alleging that the Board failed to meaningfully investigate multiple reports of sexual abuse and failed to remove Johnson until after his conduct had been reported to law enforcement.
2. The complaint plausibly alleged a Title IX claim because it alleged that a high-ranking official with actual knowledge of the harassment and authority to institute corrective measures failed to respond adequately, thereby exhibiting deliberate indifference.
3. The plaintiff plausibly alleged a claim under Articles I and IX of the North Carolina Constitution because the complaint alleged deliberate indifference to ongoing harassment that deprived him of security, bodily integrity, and a meaningful opportunity to receive an education, and the court concluded that no adequate state remedy for the same injury had been shown at the pleading stage.
4. The plaintiff abandoned the state-law tort claims by failing to address the Board's governmental-immunity argument in his response, so those claims were dismissed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Board's alleged customary failure to respond to reports of sexual misconduct and alleged failure to train or supervise employees.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a Title IX claim against the Board based on actual notice to an official with authority to take corrective action and the Board's alleged deliberate indifference.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a direct claim under Articles I and IX of the North Carolina Constitution despite the asserted availability of state-law remedies.
4. Whether the plaintiff waived or abandoned the state-law tort claims by failing to respond to the Board's governmental-immunity argument.

Disposition

other