Moore v. Lusks et al

Filing 57

ORDER granting Defendants' motion to dismiss, 52 . This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The amended complaint doesn't allege facts supporting an action under the Constitution or federal law. Defendants' other pending motions, 46 , 54 , & 55 are denied without prejudice. The amended complaint will be dismissed, for want of federal question jurisdiction, without prejudice to refiling in state court. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 2/5/2016. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
BRITAIN MOORE, Individually, and
as parent and legal guardian
of Jashanti Davis, a minor

v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 4:14-cv-147-DPM

SAUL LUSKS, Superintendent of the Lee
County School District; WILLIE MURDOCK,
Assistant Superintendent of the Lee County
School District; MILTON HALL, Member of the Lee
County School Board; ELIZABETH JOHNSON, Member
of the Lee County School Board; LAFAYETTE SM ITH,
Member of the Lee County School Board; VICTORIA
PERRY, Member of the Lee County School Board;
DAVID WALDRIP, Member of the Lee County School
Board; KENDALL GRAY, Member of the Lee County
School Board, All in Their Official and Individual
Capacities; FRANCILE COOPER, Individually and as
an agent of the Lee County School District; and
REGINA STONE, Individually and as an agent
of the Lee County School District
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
The Court appreciates Moore's amended complaint. Defendants' motion
to dismiss, though, is granted. NQ 52. This Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. The amended complaint doesn't allege facts supporting an action
under the Constitution or federal law. 28U.S.C.§1331. Moore doesn't allege
discrimination, so 42U.S.C.§1985 doesn't apply. Bray v. Alexandria Women's

Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 268 (1993). And she doesn't allege facts showing
a due process or equal protection violation, so 42U.S.C.§1983 doesn't apply.
The Court accepts as true, at this point, Moore's allegations about the bullying
and the district's failure to follow its policies for addressing it. The policy
violation is bad; the bullying is very bad. But these acts and omissions don't
violate substantive due process. They' re not among the conscience-shocking
acts targeted by the "heavy artillery" of constitutional litigation. Steuart v.

Suskie, 867F.2d1148, 1150 (8th Cir. 1989) (Richard S. Arnold, J.); Smith v. Half
Hollow Hills Central School District, 298F.3d168, 173 (2d Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
Nor do they violate procedural due process. The district's failure to follow its
rules does not, by itself, implicate a protected liberty or property interest.

Batra v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, 79 F.3d 717, 720 (8th Cir.
1996).
Defendants' other pending motions, NQ 46, 54 & 55, are denied without
prejudice as moot. The amended complaint will be dismissed, for want of
federal question jurisdiction, without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Carton v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 295 Ark. 126, 128, 747 S.W.2d 93, 94
(1988).

-2-

So Ordered.

JI

D.P. Marshall
United States District Judge

-3-