Doe et al v. Arkansas Department of Education et al

Filing 120

ORDER denying without prejudice 99 & 102 Motions. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 3/9/2017. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
LAKESHA DOE, Parent, et al.

v.

PLAINTIFFS

No. 4:15-cv-623-DPM

JOHNNY KEY, In His Official Capacity
as Commissioner of Education and the
LRSD School Board, and MICHAEL
POORE, In His Official Capacity as
Superintendent of the Little Rock
School District

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
LRSD, joined by Commissioner Key in his capacity as the LRSD board,
moves to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings. LRSD says this is the
right answer on the remaining facilities/programs claim-for the same
reasons the Court gave in dismissing the charter schools and takeover claims
some months ago. NQ 72 & 92. The Doe Plaintiffs respond with many reasons
why their last claim should go forward. Though powerful, LRSD' s arguments
fall short at this point.
The difference between the claims that the Court rejected as implausible
and the remaining claim is the record. There's two-days worth of proof on
facilities from the injunction hearing. And there are some bits about things

beyond facilities in there, too. The Court denied a preliminary injunction,
concluding that the parents and children were unlikely to succeed. But they
have a plausible claim. In fairness, the amended complaint must be read with
the evidentiary record already compiled. As the Court has noted, too, the
facts about the new high school in southwest Little Rock continue to develop.
Ng 77 & Ng 92 at 2. Taken in the light most favorable to the parents and

children, those developing facts show at least some hedging, if not some
braking. The parties are one month short of being done with discovery on the
facilities/programs claim. We have a first-out setting in July, four trial days
to complete the record. The most prudent way to resolve this case is on the
merits, then. Perhaps there are some law issues (limitations? the global
settlement?) that should be ventilated before trial to focus the proof. That's
Defendants' call. In any event, LRSD and Key can argue all their defenses,
factual and legal, at trial.

*

*

*

Joint Motion, Ng 99 & 102, denied without prejudice.

-2-

--- ·-·--·- - -- - - - - - - - - - -

So Ordered.

v

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-3-