Thomas v. Atascadero Unified School District

662 F. Supp. 376
CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 19, 1987
DocketCV-86-6609-AHS
StatusPublished
Cited by40 cases

This text of 662 F. Supp. 376 (Thomas v. Atascadero Unified School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thomas v. Atascadero Unified School District, 662 F. Supp. 376 (C.D. Cal. 1987).

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

STOTLER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction came on for hearing on November 17, 1986. Upon the consideration of the arguments and evidence urged in support of, and in opposition to, this Motion, and of the whole record herein, and based upon the Findings of Fact and conclusions of law made herewith:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pending trial of this action, each of the Defendants, his or her successors) in office, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all other persons acting in concert or participating with them, are prohibited and enjoined from excluding Plaintiffs’ son, Ryan Thomas, from attending the kindergarten class which he attended from September 3 to 8,1986, in the Atascadero Unified School District, unless such exclusion is consistent with 29 U.S.C. § 794 and 45 C.F.R. § 88.-4(b) and occurs in strict compliance with Cal. Education Code § 48213 and due process as required by the United States and California Constitutions. Based on the evidence presented to the Court, Defendants may not exclude or prevent Ryan Thomas from attending his kindergarten class on the ground that he poses a risk of transmission of the AIDS virus to his classmates or teachers.

STIPULATION REGARDING (1) AMENDMENT OF PARTIES (2) SUPPLEMENT TO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, (3) SUPPLEMENT TO ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND (4) JUDGMENT GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION

The parties, through their respective counsel, stipulate as follows:

1. Defendants Anthony Avina, Kenneth Beck, Ray King, Carl Brown, Leslie Haynes, Emile LaSalle, Susan Molle and Jean Thiebaud shall be dismissed from this action, without prejudice. The Board of Trustees, Atascadero Unified School District, shall be added as a defendant. Defendant Board of Trustees, Atascadero Unified School District shall be deemed to have been timely served, to have appeared, to have answered the complaint on file in this action, and to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court.

2. Defendants request that the Court supplement the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law signed on December 29, 1986, as indicated below. Defendants submit that the Findings should reflect the fact that their actions were based upon guidelines and recommendations concerning the school placement of children infected with the AIDS virus. Without such Findings, the record suggests that the defendants had no rationale for their decisions. Plaintiffs do not object to defendants’ making this request; however, they do not join in the request because they believe that the requested additional Findings are not necessary to support the Court’s decision. The parties agree to submit this matter to the Court for determination.

Defendants’ requested supplementary findings are as follows:

“VI. THE DISTRICT’S RELIANCE ON GUIDELINES REGARDING SCHOOL PLACEMENT OF STUDENTS WITH AIDS.
*378 “24. In August of 1985, the Centers for Disease Control of the United States Government (CDC) published information and recommendations concerning the education of children infected with the AIDS virus. Among the CDC’s recommendations are the following:
“ ‘1. Decisions regarding the type of educational and care setting for HTLV-III/LAV-infected children should be based on the behavior, neurologic development, and physical condition of the child and the expected type of interaction with others in that setting. These decisions are best made using the team approach including the child’s physician, public health personnel, the child’s parent or guardian, and personnel associated with the proposed care or educational setting. In each case, risks and benefits to both the infected child and to others in the setting should be weighed.
“ ‘3. For the infected preschool-aged child and for some neurologically handicapped children who lack control of their body secretions or who display behavior, such as biting, and those children who have uncoverable, oozing lesions, a more restricted environment is advisable until more is known about transmission in these settings. Children infected with HTLV-III/LAV should be cared for and educated in settings that minimize exposure of other children to blood or body fluids.’
“Substantially similar guidelines and recommendations were issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in March of 1986 and the California State Department of Education (SDE) in May of 1986.
“25. The Placement Committee took the recommendations of the CDC into account in its determinations and recommendations regarding Ryan Thomas following the biting incident on September 5, 1986.
“26. Aside from its citation to the recommendations of the CDC, AAP, and SDE, the School District has presented no medical evidence to prove that the AIDS virus can be transmitted by human bites. The information and recommendations published by the CDC, AAP, and SDE cite no such medical evidence and do not, of themselves, prove that transmission by biting is possible.”

3. The Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by the Court on December 29, 1986, may, subject to the Court’s approval, be amended to insert on page 2 at line 9 after the word “Constitutions.” the following sentence: “Nothing in this order shall prohibit the defendants from imposing suspension or expulsion as a means of discipline strictly in accordance with California Education Code Sections 48900 and following.”

4. The parties further stipulate that no additional evidence need be presented as to the issues herein considered and that judgment may be entered in this action in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants, (1) granting a permanent injunction in the form of the preliminary injunction previously ordered on December 29, 1986, (2) awarding plaintiffs costs in the amount of $2,387.50, and (3) awarding plaintiffs attorneys’ fees in the amount of $40,000.00.

In stipulating to entry of judgment, the parties recognize that defendants claim and reserve the right to move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), or any other applicable provision, for relief from the final judgment in the event that the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Arline v. School Board of Nassau County, 772 F.2d 759 (11th Cir.1985), (which has been argued and submitted to that Court), so interprets Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as to call into question this Court’s Conclusions of Law regarding Ryan Thomas’ status and defendants’ obligations under that statute. The parties further recognize that defendants claim and reserve the right to request, as part of such a motion, that attorneys’ fees and costs paid in accordance with the judgment granting permanent injunction be ordered repaid.

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

Related

Dohmen v. Iowa Department for the Blind
794 N.W.2d 295 (Court of Appeals of Iowa, 2010)
Toledo v. Sanchez-Rivera
454 F.3d 24 (First Circuit, 2006)
Tennessee v. Lane
541 U.S. 509 (Supreme Court, 2004)
Bragdon v. Abbott
524 U.S. 624 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Abbott v. Bragdon
912 F. Supp. 580 (D. Maine, 1995)
Erickson v. Bd. of Governors of State Colleges
911 F. Supp. 316 (N.D. Illinois, 1995)
Weeks v. Scott
55 F.3d 1059 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)
Newton v. Riley
899 S.W.2d 509 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1995)
Sanchez v. Lagoudakis
486 N.W.2d 657 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1992)
Harris v. Thigpen
941 F.2d 1495 (Eleventh Circuit, 1991)
Steven L. v. Dawn J.
148 Misc. 2d 779 (NYC Family Court, 1990)
Cain v. Hyatt
734 F. Supp. 671 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1990)
Johnetta J. v. Municipal Court
218 Cal. App. 3d 1255 (California Court of Appeal, 1990)
Benjamin R. v. Orkin Exterminating Co.
390 S.E.2d 814 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1990)
Doe v. Borough of Barrington
729 F. Supp. 376 (D. New Jersey, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
662 F. Supp. 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-atascadero-unified-school-district-cacd-1987.