White v. Pine Bush Central School District

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedAugust 23, 2021
Docket7:21-cv-06347
StatusUnknown

This text of White v. Pine Bush Central School District (White v. Pine Bush Central School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
White v. Pine Bush Central School District, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Opinion

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K MARKISHA P. WHITE; A.C., a minor,1 Plaintiffs, -against- 21-CV-6347 (LTS) PINE BUSH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT; ORDER OF DISMISSAL JESSICA ZUKOR; PATRICIA FERNANDEZ; BRIAN BREHENY, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Markisha White, who is appearing pro se, brings this action individually and on behalf of her minor child A.C. She invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, alleging that Defendants failed to protect A.C. from being injured by another student and failed to adequately investigate the incident. By order dated August 4, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses the complaint, but grants Plaintiff thirty days’ leave to replead any claims brought on her own behalf. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also

1 Rule 5.2(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that any court submissions referring to a minor must only include the minor’s initials. dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

The Supreme Court has held that, under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is

entitled to relief. Id. BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings this action against the Pine Bush Central School District; A.C.’s one-on- one aide, Jessica Zukor; nurse Patricia Fernandez, and Principal Brian Breheny. The following allegations are taken from the complaint. On May 18, 2021, A.C. came home from school with “a chunk of her hair missing” after a cornrow braid “was ripped from her scalp during recess.” (ECF 2, at 5.) Zukor was away from A.C., talking with other teachers, when the incident occurred. (Id.) A.C. claims that when she got off the swing, she felt a pain in her head. Another child came to A.C. with her braid in his hand while laughing and telling A.C. that her “hair came out.” (Id.) Zukor walked A.C. to Ms. Rose, an assistant nurse, who told A.C. that “she will be fine and sent her to lunch.” (Id.) A.C. was still in pain and alleges that her classmates were teasing and laughing at her and saying, “I got her.” (Id. at 5-6.) A.C. went to the nurse, Ms. Fernandez, who gave A.C. an ice pack and had her sit down. A.C. requested to call her mother, but Fernandez told A.C. she could not because her mother was working.

Plaintiff alleges that no incident report was made, and she was not informed of the incident by school officials. Plaintiff states that she spoke with Principal Breheny, who “basically ignored” her concerns, and nobody else could answer her questions about what happened. (Id. at 6.) A.C.’s health care provider stated that it took a lot of force for A.C.’s hair to be pulled out, and that it was unlikely that a swing caused the injury. An investigator from the state police reviewed the video of the incident, and stated, “from what he seen it wasn’t from the swing,” and that the video showed A.C. “going out of camera view with [two] other kids.” (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff requested a new one-to-one aide for A.C., but the school told her it “didn’t have

anyone else.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that A.C. suffered “head trauma” from her hair being ripped from her scalp, as well as increased anxiety and emotional distress. (Id. at 6, 7.) In the section of the complaint form asking Plaintiff to state the relief she seeks, Plaintiff writes, “Personal injury, mental & emotional injury, damages under Americans with disability Act, damages for negligence, Attorney fees, costs, expenses, any further relief as court may deem equitable.” (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff attaches to the complaint a timeline of the events, email correspondence with school officials, and a copy of a “Section 504 Accommodation Plan” which states that A.C. has been diagnosed with epilepsy and concludes that A.C. “requires 1:1 adult supervision throughout the school day.” (Id. at 10.) DISCUSSION A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(3) Rule 5.2(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that any court submissions referring to a minor must only include the minor’s initials. Plaintiff provides the full name of her minor daughter A.C. in the complaint. The Court is therefore limiting electronic access to the

complaint to a “case-participant only” basis. If Plaintiff files any additional documents, she must comply with Rule 5.2(a)(3). B. Claims on behalf of A.C. The provision governing appearances in federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 1654, allows two types of representation: “that by an attorney admitted to the practice of law by a governmental regulatory body, and that by a person representing [her]self.” Eagle Assocs. v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)
United States v. Sabino Del Rosario
902 F.2d 55 (D.C. Circuit, 1990)
Eagle Associates v. Bank of Montreal
926 F.2d 1305 (Second Circuit, 1991)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Iannaccone v. Law
142 F.3d 553 (Second Circuit, 1998)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
White v. Pine Bush Central School District, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-pine-bush-central-school-district-nysd-2021.