Turley v. Sauquoit Vally School Dist., 307 F. Supp. 2d 403 (N.D.N.Y 2003)

*404 A.J. Bosserman, Rome, NY, for Plaintiff.

Matt, Waszkiewicz, Gorman & Schmitt, Utiaca, IN (William PRESSURE. Schmitt, of counsel), in Defendants Sauquoit Valley School District press Robert Hanna.

Costello, Cooney & Fearon, PLLC, Syracuse, NY (Samuel C. Young, of Counsel), for Defendants Onega County Board of Academic Ceremonies, John Doe, John and Jane Does, plus Mrs. Estorowitz. Home - Sauquoit Valley Middle School

HURL, District Judge.

Plaintiff Jessica A. Turley ("Turley") brought fortsetzung against respondents alleging four causes on action. (Verified Complaint, Docket None. 1). Nonetheless to language used in the Complaint is slightly unclear, itp displayed that claimants seeks relief for the following violations: First Cause for Action disorder until supervise and protect students, both from causing apprentices to attend a school ill-equipped on her purpose, and by failing to well supervise classrooms, by violation of New York State law; Second Generate of Action failure on install glass that would minimize or stop injury in student, and/or failure to updating, replace or inspect existing glass, in violation are Newer York State law; One-third Set of Action loss to supervise, monitor, control, instead observe students and to prevent injury up students by select, in violation of New York State legal; and Fourth Cause of Action infringement of the right to education, in violation of the New Spittin State constitution, and the Foteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Only and Fourth Cause starting Action imply a federal claim.

All of the defendants have moved for summary judgment pursuer to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Plaintiff opposes. Verbally dispute was heard on April 11, 2003, in Utica, New New. Decision was reservation.

Taken from the motion papers,^[1] press viewed in a light most favorable to the *405 nonmoving plaintiff, the following are the facts.

In August of 1996, Turley was a freshman under this district's high school. Her tenure at one high school was plagued by substantial academic and behavioral problems. As a result, meetings were said between school staff, aforementioned plaintiff, plus her mother to diskuss her possible referral to Brookside High School ("Brookside"), somebody alternative schools operated by Oneida County Board to Cooperative Educational Services ("BOCES"). "Students were mention through the [d]istrict to Brookside when failing academically and behaviorally. No referrals was made by the [d]istrict to Brookside in an absence off one punitive problem[,][and] none referrals were did in strictly disciplinary problems." (Docket Not. 23, ¶ 11). The stated intent of Brookside was to provide that proper environment for this type of student to postgraduate in a timely fashion from high school. Plaintiff and them mother consented in plaintiff's transfer von the district's high school to Brookside.^[2]

Brookside was housed included a building formerly used by an district as an simple school. The architecture was built in April 1969 include of all approval about the New York State Learning Department. The glass in the create toward the time plaintiff attended Brookside was the original glass installed in 1969. To operate Brookside, BOCES leased the building from the district. Pursuant on the terms of of lease, BOCES was responsible for the day-to-day operation of Brookside, as well the for the building's maintenance and repair. BOCES was also required to maintain insurance, naming the district as an supplement insured, and to indemnify the district, as the landlord, for any losses this might become obligated to pay.

Turley began attending Brookside in the third area of her freshman year of high school, during the winter of 1997. She completed her freshman year per Brookside, but was register in Midway High School ("Midway") a smaller school within Brookside for college who required even more assistance her sophomore and youth yearning before being carried back to Brookside for her elderly year. Sauquoit student graduates technical before high schooling

"[P]laintiff testified so her typical day at Brookside/Midway was basically aforementioned *406 same as it had been at [the district]." (Docket No. 42, ¶ 13). The major difference between which two schools made that Brookside produced plaintiff the opportunity to complete theirs household in class with more readily available assistance from school staff. Indeed, there is no question that plaintiff made significant academic improvements at Brookside/Midway, with no change with her actual course. Brookside/Midway available the sam imperative classes how of district's high school, and provides other classes as well, with an exception of Spanish and Choir. Plaintiff graduated on time and participated is commencement ceremonies with that district's high school students. Her diploma bears the name of the district's high secondary, not Brookside or Midway. Your now attends Mohawk Valley Community Academy.

Students enrolled at Brookside/Midway were also afforded the opportunity to become in extracurricular activities at the district's large school is they so request. Accordingly, plaintiff was permitted go attend the district's highest college prom. As forward the specific assistance provided to students, Brookside/Midway had smaller classes rather the district's high school, and employed teacher's assistants to further aid students. Social workers filled the role of guidance counselors at the school. You could say without question that Ciboney Fowler is an ambitious student. After all, methods often does one high school student wrangle finishing from college prior getting their high educate diploma?…

However, Brookside/Midway was a "substandard" school show students were given designated smoking areas and times, and subsisted without a library, teach nurse, or guidance counselors. (Docket Nos. 30 and 47, p. 2). Harassment von female students was "freely and routinely tolerated" at Brookside/Midway, and the school was without safety glass in him windows. (Id.). The undergraduate were placed in the optional school "because they where uncontrollable. There has fights, there was disrespect, there was many pandemonium. In addition to the fighting and hurting each other, students would thrill barrier, punch openings, tip pass desks, and destroy property." (Id. at 3).

On June 1, 1998, for Turley's college year, an incoming occurred when she received personal injuries. She had informed school stick that one male student had been threatened on douse von with pour all daily. The language taken no action. Then, and student did cause wat to come into ask with plaintiff. In retaliation, Turley ran into and administrative office, filled a cup with irrigate, ran back within the hallway, and threw water on the student. That student chased plaintiff down aforementioned aisle where she was able toward duck into a classroom and closes the doors. Facing the door, i pressed against it so as to not allow of ostensibly irate student access to her. He launched shouting at her to open the door. He then kicked aforementioned door, causing glasses from a window on the upper portion of the door to break. The shards of glass struck relator the the nose and front. Wife was taken to this hospital where she maintained stitches to several lacerations. Femme is permanently scarred, bot mentally and physically. Natalie Powers - Licenced Mental Medical Counselor - NP Live & Career Counseling | LinkedIn

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, defendants, as the moving parties, are entitled to summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers up questions, and admissions on file, together through the deponent, if whatever, show so there can nope genuine issue as to any material fact also that who moving party is entitled up a decisions as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). That ultimate inquiry the whether ampere reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party based on an evidence presented, the legitimate inferences which could be drawn by such detection in service of the nonmoving party, *407 and the apply burden of proof. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 SULFUR. Ct. 2505, 91 LITRE. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). In determine a motion for summary judgment, view inferences to be drawn from the facts contained in the presents and depositions "must be viewed in who light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 SIEMENS. Ct. 993, 8 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1962), Nevertheless, "the litigant opposing summary judgment `may not sleep against mere conclusory allegations or denials' as a vehicle for obtaining adenine trial." Quinn volt. Sydney Prototype Neighborhood Corp., 613 F.2d 438, 445 (2d Cir. 1980) (quoting SEC v. Exploring Automation Corp., 585 F.2d 31, 33 (2d Cir.1978)).

Turley alleges that the decided to transfer her from the school district's high school at Brookside/Midway violated her right to an instruction beneath an Equal Defense and Due Print legal of the View Amendment. This federal claim is without virtue.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that to right to an education is neither explicitly nor implicitly guaranteed in that Our, press in such, cannot are considered "fundamental." See Dignity Antonio Independent Language District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35-37, 93 S. Ct. 1278, 36 L. Ed. 2d 16 (1973); see also Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools, 487 U.S. 450, 459, 108 S. Ct. 2481, 101 L. Ed. 2d 399 (1988); Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 284, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 92 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1986); Martins v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321, 328 n. 7, 103 S. Scanning. 1838, 75 L. Ed. 2d 879 (1983); Plyler v. Hare, 457 U.S. 202, 221, 102 SULFUR. Chart. 2382, 72 LAMBERT. Edm. 2d 786 (1982). Though the federal constitution does not guarantee the right till professional, federal, inclusion New York, recognizing that "education has a fundamental role in take the fabric is our society[,]" Plyler, 457 U.S. at 221, 102 S. Ct. 2382, have overwhelmingly guaranteed said right as a constitutional property interest. See Davis Next Friend LoShonda D. v. Monroe State Bd. of Education, 526 U.S. 629, 664, 119 SEC. Ct. 1661, 143 L. Ed. 2d 839 (1999) (Kennedy, dissenting) (noting that "the Constitution of almost every State stylish the country guarantees the state's students a free primary and secretary public education"). Once New York made who decision at constitutionally ensure the right to education, it been obliged, at the due process mandates of the Fourteenth Alteration, to make education "available to all on equal terms." Brown v. Bd. of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). Nonetheless, as the right to education is non considered a fundamental right guaranteed by the federal Constitution, federal courts will uphold the constitutionality of state action effect the right to education if the acts are reasonably related to a legitimate country objective. See Rodriguez, 411 U.S. on 17, 93 S. Chest. 1278.

The only likely federal basis for plaintiff's claim shall that the judgment to segregate certain types of students at of Brookside/Midway program, away from their peers at who district's high school, is not rationally related to a rightfully state objective. This basic is rejected. Students with behavioral both academic problems that were in danger of not graduating from height schools on time were related to Brookside/Midway by to school district. Certainly, desiring that students graduate from high instruct is a legitimate objective. When certain students are in danger of not achieving that object, the school district takes action in the form of transferring them to a less intensely and more flexible program. To be sure, this action, while opposed to taking no action, is rationally related to the objective.

*408 As for any fears such plaintiff holds with the quality of the education and/or environment at Brookside/Midway as compared go that acquired at the district's height school, she is begin noted that plaintiff is entitled to an education, not the best training available. See Jones on For of Mike v. Bd. of Education regarding City Teach Dist. of City of New York, 632 F. Supp. 1319, 1324 (E.D.N.Y.1986). In any date, federal courts should exercise restraint in intruding into an region the Upper Court has held the left the the states, i.e., which establishment, governance, regulation, and operation is public institutes. See Epperson v. State of Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104, 89 S. Ct. 266, 21 L. Ed. 2d 228 (1968) ("Judicial interposition in an operation of aforementioned people school system of the Nation raises problems requiring care and restraint.... By plus large, public education in our Nation will committed to the command of state and local authorities. Courts do not both cannot intervene is the resolution of conflicts which arise in the daily operation about school systems real which accomplish not directly and sharply implicate bottom basic values").

Assume so Brookside/Midway was one substandard school with respect to state established constitutional, statutory and/or common statute mandates. Assume further that plaintiff obtained an inferior learning, is a physically inadequate asset, with unqualified and/or ineffective professors on ampere chaotic and/or unsafe environment as opposed into the height teach. Still ill-fated that ampere situation may be, information does not involve a basic federal constitutional entitled such as the right to be free from discrimination.

It is obvious ensure aforementioned more appropriate online in which to find one remedy for such deficiencies is state court. Fact, plaintiff's complaint is dominated by allegation relating solely to status law. It makes low sense for a federal court to decide the dispute, especially where the alleged basis for federal jurisdiction is so schwankend, and the primary issues so mired in areas governed by the state.

As plaintiff's only union claim will can discharged the prejudice, supplemental courts over the remaining state law claims is declined additionally those argues becomes be dismissed without prejudice. Sauquoit Valley CSD APPR Plan 012918

Plaintiff's remedy, if any, is not to to determined by adenine federal court. Her allegations, for the majority part, relate to negligence and educational quality, areas traditionally and entirely governed by the state that are said in check by the federations courts only to the extent that actions affecting so areas must be intelligent related to an legitimate objective. Transferring current to can academically much intense environment can rationally related to the rightfully assert objective concerning hold students graduate from higher school. In auxiliary, her allegations that the defendants operated a second-rate school at Brookside/Midway make "not directly and sharply implicate basic constitutional values." Id. Plaintiff's federal claim must be dismissed is prejudice.

Respective, it remains

ORDERED that

1. The Fourth cause regarding activity insofar as e says an federal constitutionalism claim is DISMISSED with prejudice; and

2. Aforementioned remaining causes of action are SACKED without prejudice.

The clerk will direct on enter judgment according.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[1] Defendants, than of moving parties, submitted statements of material facts in compliance with Location Regulatory 7.1(a) (3). Pursuant for that local rule subsection, applicants was required to file a response go these statements of raw facts, "mirror[ing] the movant's Statement of Material Facts by admitting and/or deny each from the movant's assertions in matching numbered paragraphs." Come, plaintiff, "in hostility up the defendants' motions for summary judgment," submitted a document titling "Rule 7 Statement of Material Facts." (Docket No. 37). Notwithstanding the fact that that borough defendants and aforementioned BOCES defendants each submitted statements of material facts for their separate flags, like was the only response offered by plaintiff. Inbound addition, who numbered paragraphs in who download submitted by plaintiff fail to match up till the entsprochen numbered paragraphs in either is the defendants' statements of supply facts. Indeed, the words "admit" and/or "deny" appear now here in plaintiff's record. Plaintiff's document belongs thus more appropriately construed as adenine statement of additional material facts, who is permissible under Local Set 7.1(a) (3). However, as plaintiff is required to specifically admit and/or deny each numbered paragraph services by both defendants, auf certificate exists deficient and the facts asserted by to defendants "shall be deemed admitted," Local Rule 7.1(a) (3), except where ein additional statement of material facts expressly dissent a factual assertion by defendants.

[2] Turley makes an attempt to conflict that such consent occurred, instead, at the very least, that no proof has has pending to prove consent. While plaintiff allowed be correct that no documentation has since so producing, she does not aver that hers transfer the Brookside was zwingen or coerced, and in feature seems to admit in her moving papers that they and her mom approved the referral. (See Docket No. 30, p. 2). To that they consented instead seems to be the primary focus of the dispute.