Overstreet et al v. Phoenix, City of et al

Filing 62

ORDER granting 37 Motion to Dismiss Counts/Claims; granting 58 Motion for summary adjudication. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/19/2013.(NVO)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

J.O. a minor, by JEROME and DENISE
OVERSTREET, next best friends,

No. CIV 12-0125 PHX DGC
ORDER

10

Plaintiffs,

11

v.

12

CITY OF PHOENIX, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

On July 9, 2012, Defendants Phoenix Union High School District, Luis Lemus,

16

Craig Pletenik, and Lee Fernwault filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s substantive due

17

process claim. Doc. 37. Defendants argue that the Fourteenth Amendment does not

18

protect public education as a substantive fundamental right. Id. Defendants cite Plyler v.

19

Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 221 (1892) (“Public education is not a ‘right’ granted to individuals

20

by the Constitution.”), and San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35

21

(1973) (“[e]ducation . . . is not among the rights afforded explicit protection under our

22

Federal Constitution.”), to support their claim. Id.

23

Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, did not file a response to Defendants’

24

motion. When a party does not serve and file a required answering memoranda, Local

25

Rule 7.2(i) permits the Court to dispose of the motion summarily. Moreover, it appears

26

that Defendants’ arguments are well taken.

27
28

1
2
3
4
5
6

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss counts/claims: third claim (Doc. 37) is

granted. The third (substantive due process) claim for relief is hereby dismissed with
prejudice.
2.

Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication (Doc. 58) is granted.

Dated this 19th day of February, 2013.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
‐ 2 ‐