Doe v. Pine Bluff School District

E.D. Arkansas

Doe v. Pine Bluff School District

DecidedJune 18, 2025

Docket4:24-cv-01106

StatusUnknown

This text of Doe v. Pine Bluff School District (Doe v. Pine Bluff School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doe v. Pine Bluff School District, (E.D. Ark. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

A.W., a minor, through his parent and next friend, and LEE WISE PLAINTIFFS

V. No. 4:24-cv-1106-DPM

PINE BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT; JENNIFER BARBAREE, individually and in her official capacity as Superintendent; TIMOTHY SCOTT, individually and in his official capacity as Principal of Broadmoor Elementary School; and JOHN DOES 1-10 DEFENDANTS

ORDER Parental rights and bodily autonomy are hot topics these days. This case involves both. A.W. is a student at Broadmoor Elementary School in Pine Bluff. Last October, he got a flu shot. Lee Wise, A.W.’s father, never consented — and presumably wouldn’t have, if asked. The Wises say that Superintendent Barbaree and Principal Scott didn’t seek parental consent on purpose or, at the very least, negligently allowed it to happen. The School District, Superintendent Barbaree, and Principal Scott have moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The Wises seek leave to file a third amended complaint identifying two of

the John Doe defendants. They didn’t attach a proposed Third Amended Complaint to their motion. LOCAL RULE 5.5(e). The motion for leave to amend, Doc. 19, is granted with instructions. The Court is skeptical that the Wises have offered enough facts in the Second Amended Complaint to state plausible fourteenth Amendment due process claims against the School District, Superintendent Barbaree, or Principal Scott. B.A.B., Jr. v. Board of Education of City of St. Louis, 698 F.3d 1037, 1040 (8th Cir. 2012). More facts are needed, particularly because it now appears to be agreed that Faseeia Preston, an Arkansas Department of Health employee, gave A.W. the flu shot. The Third Amended Complaint must be filed by 27 June 2025. The Court discourages another hybrid Rule 12/Rule 56 motion. Please pick one road or the other to keep the issues and applicable legal standards clear. The motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 16, is denied without prejudice as moot. So Ordered.

D.P. Marshatt jr. United States District Judge __/8 pve

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

A.W., a minor, through his parent and next friend, and LEE WISE PLAINTIFFS

V. No. 4:24-cv-1106-DPM

PINE BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT; JENNIFER BARBAREE, individually and in her official capacity as Superintendent; TIMOTHY SCOTT, individually and in his official capacity as Principal of Broadmoor Elementary School; and JOHN DOES 1-10 DEFENDANTS

ORDER Parental rights and bodily autonomy are hot topics these days. This case involves both. A.W. is a student at Broadmoor Elementary School in Pine Bluff. Last October, he got a flu shot. Lee Wise, A.W.’s father, never consented — and presumably wouldn’t have, if asked. The Wises say that Superintendent Barbaree and Principal Scott didn’t seek parental consent on purpose or, at the very least, negligently allowed it to happen. The School District, Superintendent Barbaree, and Principal Scott have moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The Wises seek leave to file a third amended complaint identifying two of

the John Doe defendants. They didn’t attach a proposed Third Amended Complaint to their motion. LOCAL RULE 5.5(e). The motion for leave to amend, Doc. 19, is granted with instructions. The Court is skeptical that the Wises have offered enough facts in the Second Amended Complaint to state plausible fourteenth Amendment due process claims against the School District, Superintendent Barbaree, or Principal Scott. B.A.B., Jr. v. Board of Education of City of St. Louis, 698 F.3d 1037, 1040 (8th Cir. 2012). More facts are needed, particularly because it now appears to be agreed that Faseeia Preston, an Arkansas Department of Health employee, gave A.W. the flu shot. The Third Amended Complaint must be filed by 27 June 2025. The Court discourages another hybrid Rule 12/Rule 56 motion. Please pick one road or the other to keep the issues and applicable legal standards clear. The motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 16, is denied without prejudice as moot. So Ordered.

D.P. Marshatt jr. United States District Judge __/8 pve

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Doe v. Pine Bluff School District, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-pine-bluff-school-district-ared-2025.

Opinion

V. No. 4:24-cv-1106-DPM

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack