Petty et al v. Hite et al
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiffs 12/26/13 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 12/26/13. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
SHAVONTE PETTY, et al.
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 13-1654
:
DR. WILLIAM HITE, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending and ready for review in this employment
discrimination case are two motions.
Defendants Dr. William
Hite and the Board of Education of Prince George’s County filed
a
motion
to
judgment.
dismiss
(ECF
No.
or,
7).
in
the
Defendant
Education filed a motion to dismiss.
Shavonte
Petty
motions.
The
necessary.
and
Theresa
court
Local
Rule
alternative,
now
Maryland
State
(ECF No. 11).
Petty
did
rules,
no
105.6.
for
For
not
the
Board
of
Plaintiffs
respond
hearing
summary
to
being
following
these
deemed
reasons,
Defendants’ motions will be granted.
I.
Background
The following facts are either set forth in the complaint,
evidenced
by
documents
referenced
or
relied
upon
in
the
complaint, or are matters of public record of which the court
may take judicial notice.1
Plaintiff Shavonte Petty was a student at Oxon Hill High
School in Prince George’s County, Maryland (“High School”).
mother
is
allergies
Plaintiff
and
considered
Theresa
asthma
them
of
to
be
Petty.
such
Shavonte
severity
disabilities.
that
suffers
the
High
Section
504
Her
from
School
of
the
Rehabilitation Act prohibits public schools from discriminating
against students with disabilities by denying them the benefits
offered
by
public
Consequently,
School
to
school
Theresa
craft
a
programs.
worked
“504
with
Plan”
by
29
U.S.C.
administrators
granting
of
§
794(a).
the
High
modifications
or
adjustments of the High School’s educational programs in order
to accommodate Shavonte’s disabilities.
Shavonte’s 504 Plan was
adopted in the week of August 17, 2009, immediately prior to the
start of the 11th grade school year.
1
The 504 Plan provided for
“Although as a general rule extrinsic evidence should not
be considered at the 12(b)(6) stage,” the court may consider
such evidence where the plaintiff has notice of it, does not
dispute its authenticity, and relies on it in framing the
complaint.
Am. Chiropractic Ass’n v. Trigon Healthcare, Inc.,
367 F.3d 212, 234 (4th Cir. 2002); see also Douglass v. NTI-TSS,
Inc., 632 F.Supp.2d 486, 490 n.1 (D.Md. 2009). Here, Defendants
have attached documents pertaining to a hearing before the State
Board of Education concerning Plaintiffs.
These documents are
referenced or relied upon by the complaint. Plaintiffs have not
filed oppositions and thus, do not challenge the authenticity of
the documents.
Therefore, the court may consider them in
resolving the pending motions to dismiss.
2
additional tutoring; additional time to complete assignments;
and home and hospital instruction as needed.
Theresa engaged High School administrators throughout the
504 Plan’s implementation.
She requested qualified home and
hospital instructors for Shavonte’s advanced classes.
The High
School told her that such instructors were not available but
Shavonte could take online classes.
Shavonte was often absent from school, presumably due to
her illnesses.
As a result, she was unable to meet modified
deadlines for her assignments, even after the High School pushed
them further back.
Consequently, she was given failing grades
in some subjects.
In January 2011, Theresa petitioned Dr. Hite, the thenSuperintendent
of
the
Prince
concerning the 504 Plan.
George’s
County
Public
Schools,
Dr. Hite found that the High School
had appropriately accommodated Shavonte.
Theresa appealed that
decision to the Prince George’s County School Board.
The Board
rejected Theresa’s appeal on February 14, 2011, finding that the
High School had provided adequate accommodations and had worked
with Theresa throughout the process in crafting a 504 Plan.
Finally, Theresa appealed up to the Maryland State Board of
Education.
Board,
On May 25, 2011, the State Board reversed the County
finding
accommodations.
the
504
Plan
flawed
and
lacking
in
timely
The State Board found that the High School’s
3
accommodations were based more on what was available as opposed
to
the
needs
of
Shavonte.
Furthermore,
the
High
School
repeatedly responded to Shavonte’s absence by pushing back her
assignment deadlines, which only led to Shavonte missing a later
deadline.
The State Board found that the High School should
have realized much sooner that merely extending deadlines was
not effective and a different approach was necessary.
The State
Board did not, however, mandate that Shavonte be allowed to
graduate
without
completing
her
outstanding
requirements.2
Additionally, the State Board dismissed Plaintiffs’ allegations
of
harassment
and
their
request
that
Shavonte’s
grades
be
changed, finding that those claims were either not raised in
earlier proceedings or were not presented with the necessary
specificity.
(ECF No. 7-13).
On June 7, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a pro se complaint in
this court.
(ECF No. 1).
While not clear, Plaintiffs appear to
be making a claim that Defendants violated the Rehabilitation
Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., alleging that the principal and
teachers of the High School falsified Shavonte’s grades; the
High
School’s
administration
lost
her
teachers gave Shavonte her work late.
in
the
amount
of
four
years
2
school
file;
and
her
Plaintiffs seek damages
college
fees;
correction
of
Defendants recite that Shavonte eventually completed the
requirements for graduation and received her diploma.
4
Shavonte’s
grades
and
record;
and
a
written
apology.
Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was
granted on June 25, 2013.
(ECF No. 3).
On August 5, 2013, Defendants Dr. William Hite and the
Board of Education for Prince George’s County filed a motion to
dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
7).
On
August
Education
filed
7,
a
2013,
motion
Defendant
to
Maryland
dismiss.
(ECF
State
No.
(ECF No.
Board
11).
of
In
accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.
1975), the clerk of court mailed a letter to Plaintiffs on the
day after each of these motions were filed, notifying them that
a dispositive motion had been filed and that they were entitled
to file opposition material or risk entry of judgment against
them.
(ECF Nos. 9 and 12).
On August 27, 2013, Plaintiffs
filed a motion for extension of time to file their responses.
Plaintiffs stated that they were in the process of trying to
obtain counsel.
(ECF No. 13).
On the same day, the court
granted Plaintiffs’ motion, setting their deadline at September
27, 2013.
(ECF No. 14).
On the day of this new deadline,
Plaintiffs filed a second motion for an extension of time to
continue to search for an attorney.
(ECF No. 18).
The court
granted this motion, extending Plaintiffs’ deadline to October
28, 2013.
since then.
(ECF No. 19).
Plaintiffs have not filed anything
Consequently, Defendants’ motions stand unopposed.
5
II.
Standard of Review
The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is
to test the sufficiency of the complaint.
Charlottesville,
464
F.3d
480,
483
(4th
Presley v. City of
Cir.
2006).
A
plaintiff’s complaint need only satisfy the standard of Rule
8(a), which requires a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
8(a)(2).
Fed.R.Civ.P.
“Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a ‘showing,’ rather than
a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.”
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 n.3 (2007).
Bell Atl. Corp.
That showing must
consist of more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action” or “naked assertion[s] devoid of further
factual enhancement.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (internal citations omitted).
At this stage, all well-pleaded allegations in a complaint
must be considered as true, Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266,
268 (1994), and all factual allegations must be construed in the
light
most
favorable
to
the
plaintiff.
See
Harrison
v.
Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 783 (4th Cir.
1999) (citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134
(4th Cir. 1993)).
In evaluating the complaint, unsupported legal
allegations
not
need
be
accepted.
Revene
Comm’rs, 882 F.2d 870, 873 (4th Cir. 1989).
v.
Charles
Cnty.
Legal conclusions
couched as factual allegations are insufficient, Iqbal, 556 U.S.
6
at 678, as are conclusory factual allegations devoid of any
reference to actual events, United Black Firefighters v. Hirst,
604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir. 1979).
III. Analysis
Plaintiffs
appear
to
bring
a
claim
for
a
violation
of
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for allegedly failing to
accommodate Shavonte’s disabilities.
“No
otherwise
qualified
individual
Section 504 states that
with
a
disability
in
the
United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his
disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program
or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
§ 794(a).
29 U.S.C.
A viable cause of action contains three elements:
Title II of the ADA provides that “no
qualified
individual
with
a
disability
shall, by reason of such disability, be
excluded from participation in or be denied
the benefits of the services, programs, or
activities of a public entity, or be
subjected to discrimination by any such
entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Similarly, § 504
of the Rehabilitation Act provides that
“[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a
disability ... shall, solely by reason of
her or his disability, be excluded from the
participation in, or be denied the benefits
of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
In general, a plaintiff seeking recovery for
violation of either statute must allege that
(1) she has a disability, (2) she is
otherwise qualified to receive the benefits
of a public service, program, or activity,
7
and (3) she was excluded from participation
in or denied the benefits of such service,
program,
or
activity,
or
otherwise
discriminated against, on the basis of her
disability. Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462,
467–70 (4th Cir. 1999); Doe v. University of
Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 50 F.3d 1261, 1264–65 &
n. 9 (4th Cir. 1995).
Constantine v. Rectors and Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411
F.3d 474, 498 (4th Cir. 2005).
Furthermore, “to establish a
violation of section 504,” the plaintiffs “must prove that they
have been discriminated against – that they were ‘excluded from
the . . . benefit due to discrimination solely on the basis of
the disability.”
Sellers v. Sch. Bd. of City of Manassas, 141
F.3d 524, 528 (4th Cir. 1998) (quoting Doe v. Univ. of Md. Med.
Sys. Corp., 50 F.3d 1261, 1265 (4th
Sellers).
Moreover,
“either
bad
Cir. 1995) (emphasis in
faith
or
gross
misjudgment
should be shown before a § 504 violation can be made out, at
least in the context of education of [disabled] children.”
Id.
at 529.
Defendant Maryland State Board of Education is not alleged
to have discriminated against Plaintiffs at all.
the
State
Board
held
the
High
Shavonte’s 504 Plan inadequate.
School
to
account
If anything,
by
deeming
It is not necessary to address
the State Board’s other arguments.
The allegations against Dr.
Hite and the County Board are similarly deficient.
Plaintiffs’
one-page complaint is devoid of any facts sufficient to allege
8
that Shavonte was denied the benefits of a public program or
activity due to discrimination on the basis of her disability.
Disagreements about the sufficiency of accommodations, without
more, are not sufficient.
Plaintiffs’
brief
and
See Sellers, 141 F.3d at 528-29.
conclusory
allegations
do
not
state
a
claim.
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motions to dismiss
will be granted.
A separate order will follow.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?