Elizabeth Sanchez v. Elizabeth Board of Education

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: April 16, 2025
• Docket: 24-1715
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________

No. 24-1715 _______________

ELIZABETH SANCHEZ, Guardian ad Litem; CHARLES SANCHEZ; E.S., a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Appellants

v.

ELIZABETH BOARD OF EDUCATION; JOSEPH TROIANO; JENNIFER CAMPEL; CRISTINA BRITO _______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01027) District Judge: Honorable Evelyn Padin _______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on March 25, 2025

Before: BIBAS, PHIPPS, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

(Filed: April 16, 2025)

_______________

OPINION* _______________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. BIBAS, Circuit Judge.

When plaintiffs tell a story that is contradicted by an accurate video, they usually lose.

This story starts with E.S., a fifth grader in his school’s gym. Joseph Troiano, his music

teacher, was setting the gym up for kindergarten graduation and watching the fifth graders

who were there. Troiano told the students to sit in the chairs he had set up for the gradua-

tion. But E.S. was horsing around. He lay across a girl’s lap and then started repeatedly

throwing himself to the floor. Another student took his seat, so E.S. started wriggling

between students to try to get it back. While Troiano was bringing in a lectern, E.S. was

lying between two girls who were tickling him. Seeing this, Troiano told E.S. to “get up.”

App. 7. He did not. E.S. claims that Troiano grabbed him by the arm and pulled him out of

his chair. Then, when E.S. tried to go back to his chair, Troiano put “his fist out by [his]

chest” and “kept pushing” harder and harder. App. 7. Later, E.S. said Troiano “punched”

him. App. at 8. He says that bruised his arm and hurt his chest. Then an arriving kindergar-

ten teacher pulled E.S. away and told him to leave. The whole incident lasted less than a

minute.

E.S. and his parents complained to the school and police, to no avail. E.S. claims that

when he returned the next school year, teachers and guards retaliated against him by fol-

lowing him around and glaring at him.

E.S. and his parents sued Troiano, the Board of Education, and the school’s principal

and vice principal. They brought claims alleging assault and battery, a violation of substan-

tive due process, and retaliation against E.S for his complaints in violation of the First

Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment for defendants on all counts.

2 E.S. and his parents appeal only the claims described here. We review de novo, viewing

the facts and drawing inferences in favor of E.S. Tundo v. County of Passaic, 923 F.3d 283,

286–87 (3d Cir. 2019).

Troiano did not violate E.S.’s right to substantive due process. As the District Court

noted, a teacher may use reasonable force to maintain order. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S.

651, 661 (1977). Still, force that “shocks the conscience” violates the Due Process Clause.

Gottlieb v. Laurel Highlands Sch. Dist., 272 F.3d 168, 173 (3d Cir. 2001). But that occurs

only if a teacher uses (1) excessive force (2) without any pedagogical imperative (3) maliciously

and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm, (4) creating serious injury. Id. We

have none of that here. Troiano grabbed E.S. by the arm to pull him up and used his body

to block E.S. from returning to his chair. Though E.S. claims otherwise, this force hardly

shocks the conscience. It was reasonable to address E.S.’s unruly behavior, and no rational

trier of fact could find that it was done only to cause harm or that it did create serious injury.

Resisting this conclusion, E.S. insists on his version of the story: that Troiano punched

him twice in the chest. But he did not, even when we draw all reasonable inferences in

favor of E.S. The video of the gym from the hallway shows the relevant part of the incident,

and it belies E.S.’s claim. No one disputes that the video is authentic and accurate. As the

District Court rightly found, “no rational trier of fact could conclude that Mr. Troiano

punched E.S.” App. 18.

For this reason, E.S.’s assault and battery claims fail as well. The common law privi-

leges Troiano’s reasonable force. Ingraham, 430 U.S. at 661.

3 E.S.’s retaliation claims fare no better. To support them, E.S. alleges that the named

defendants both (1) followed him around and watched him, and (2) barred his parents from

the school. As the District Court found, the first acts were de minimis. And given E.S.’s

repeated disciplinary problems, they were also justified security measures. As for the sec-

ond claim, we cannot consider it because E.S. forfeited it by raising it too late. Because

there is no material question of fact about whether E.S. was punched and because he suf-

fered no actionable retaliation, we will affirm.