Caldwell et al v. Missouri State High School Activities Association et al
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amended motion to dismiss of Missouri State High School Activities Association [ECF No. 21 ] and the motion to dismiss of Francis Howell North High School and Michael Janes [ECF No. 26 ] are ea ch GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining pending motions are denied as moot. [ECF Nos. 2 , 13 , 17 , and 23 ] An appropriate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on March 21, 2018. (BRP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DEQUILA MATHEWS CALDWELL and
JUSTIN MATHEWS-WILLIAMS,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
V.
)
Case No. 4:18-CV-261 RLW
)
MISSOURI STATE HIGH SCHOOL
ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION; FRANCIS
HOWELL NORTH HIGH SCHOOL; and
MICHAEL JANES, in his individual and official
capacities,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case began with the request of Justin Mathews-Williams and his mother, Dequila
Mathews-Caldwell (Plaintiffs), for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and a preliminary
injunction prohibiting Francis Howell North High School ("Francis Howell") from enforcing
Section 2.2.2 of the Missouri State High School Activities Association ("MSHSAA") By-Laws
stating that a student who has "commit[ted] an act for which charges may or have been filed" is
not eligible to participate in interscholastic activities. (Pls. Compl Ex. 1 at 43.) MathewsWilliams had been suspended from his high school basketball team after being charged with a
misdemeanor; and, arguing that Section 2.2.2 is racially discriminatory in intent and purpose
because people of color are arrested more frequently than others, he sought an order requiring he
be allowed to participate in Senior Night and in the remaining games of the season. In his
contemporaneously-filed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, he also requested "monetary relief' and a
declaratory judgment that MSHSAA's application of Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 (delineating
authority of local school to, among other things, set "more restrictive citizenship standards") is
illegal racial discrimination m violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Following a hearing on the TRO request, the Court directed that Mathews-Williams be
allowed to appear, with certain limitations, with the basketball team for Senior Night. The Court
ordered that his suspension from playing in basketball games was to remain in full force and
effect. A hearing on his request for a preliminary injunction was scheduled.
Senior Night was the same day as the TRO hearing. Mathews-Williams did not appear.
(Janes' Aff.
~
8; ECF No. 26-1.) Francis Howell played their last basketball game of the season
on February 24, 2018.
(Id.~~
9, 11.)
Four days later, MSHSAA filed an amended motion to dismiss, arguing, in relevant part,
that the case is moot. Six days later, Francis Howell and Michael Janes moved to dismiss on the
grounds of mootness and, as to the claims of Dequila Mathews-Caldwell, of lack of standing.
Plaintiffs have not responded to either motion.
1
"'Article III of the Constitution limits federal-court jurisdiction to "cases" and
"controversies."'
United States v. McHatten, 869 F.3d 622, 623 (8 1h Cir. 2017) (quoting
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 663, 669 (2016)). '"If an intervening circumstance
deprives the plaintiff of a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit, at any point during the
litigation, the action can no longer proceed and must be dismissed as moot."' Campbell-Elward,
136 S.Ct. at 669 (quoting Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 72 (2013)). See
also Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 711 (2011) (there is no live controversy to review when
1
Rule 4.0l(B) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Missouri requires that a party
opposing a motion file, "within seven (7) days after being served with the motion, a
memorandum containing any relevant argument and citations to authorities on which the party
relies." E.D.Mo. L.R. 4.0l(B).
2
"subsequent events ma[ke] it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not
reasonably be expected to recur") (interim quotations omitted) (alteration in original).
Plaintiffs sought an order directing Defendants to allow Mathews-Williams to play in this
season's remaining basketball games. The season is now over. Their request is moot. See
McFarlin v. Newport Special School Dist., 980 F.2d 1208, 1210 (8th Cir. 1992) (dismissing as
moot appeal from denial of TRO and preliminary injunction in case challenging school board's
decision banning senior girl from participating on basketball team; girl had graduated and "court
[could not] place [her] back on the basketball team"). See also Mount Carmel High School v.
Illinois High School Ass 'n, 664 N.E.2d 252, 254 -55 (Ill.Ct.App. 1996) (high school's challenge
to athletic association's decision barring school from participating in wrestling meet on grounds
school had violated association's by-laws was rendered moot when meet was canceled); Univ.
Interscholastic League v. Jones, 715 S.W.2d 759, 760-61 (Tex.Ct.App. 1986) (appeal of trial
court's decision allowing defendant to play high school football was rendered moot when
defendant graduated from high school).
An exception to the mootness doctrine exists for cases that are capable of repetition, yet
evade review. Stevenson v. Blytheville School Dist. No. 5, 762 F.3d 765, 769 (8th Cir. 2014).
[A] controversy is capable of repetition, yet evading review where both of the
following two requirements are met: ( 1) the challenged action [is] in its duration
too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is]
a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subjected to
the same action again.
Id. (quotations omitted) (alterations in original). In Stevenson, the court held that the appeal
from the denial of a preliminary injunction enjoining a school district from adopting a measure
which would effectively prevent the children of plaintiffs from transferring schools was rendered
moot when the school year ended. The controversy was "not 'capable ofrepetition'" because the
issue pertained to one school year, and that school year was complete. Id. at 770. Similarly,
3
Plaintiffs challenge the decision suspending Mathews-Williams for the remainder of the 2018
basketball season. That season is complete. Moreover, Mathews-Williams is a senior and will
not be playing next season.
Plaintiffs advance no argument as to why their claim for injunctive or declaratory relief is
not now moot.
Plaintiffs also requested monetary relief.
2
"A legitimate, non-speculative claim for
compensatory damages is not mooted by a change in circumstances." Cobb v. US Dep 't of
Educ., 2006 WL 2671241, *3 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2006). Francis Howell and Janes argue that
the only allegations supporting a claim for monetary damages are that Mathews-Williams might
miss out an athletic scholarship if not permitted to play in the few remaining games. 3 Plaintiffs
do not disagree with this characterization of their claim, which the Court finds to be too
speculative to withstand the unopposed motions to dismiss. In Governor Wentworth Regional
School Dist. v. Hendrickson, 201 Fed.Appx. 7, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2006) (per curiam), the court
dismissed an appeal challenging on First Amendment grounds a student's suspension from
school. The parents' claim for damages based on a theory that the suspension would adversely
2
Plaintiffs did not request nominal damages. See Dean v. Blumenthal, 577 F.3d 60, 66 (2nd Cir.
2009) (finding that claim for nominal damages prevented action alleging violation of
constitutional rights from being moot).
3
The allegations relating to scholarships read as follows:
High School basketball games provides [sic] a critical, but limited window of
time for players to attract the attention of coaches and compete for college
scholarships.
The number of available athletic scholarships that colleges may award each year
is limited, and that number grows smaller each week of the basketball season.
Often, scholarships are awarded at the end of the season, or during the last few
games of the season, based on stats and recruiting trips occurring at the end of the
season.
(Compl. ii 21-22.)
4
affect their son's employment prospects was determined to be too speculative to prevent the
appeal from becoming moot on the student's graduation. Id. See also Schell v. OSY USA, Inc.,
814 F.3d 1107, 1115 (10th Cir. 2016) (finding claim for damages arising from allegations of
hypothetical future harm too speculative to save appeal from mootness); CMR D.N. Corp. v. City
of Philadelphia, 703 F.3d 612, 622 (3rd Cir. 2013) (noting that "[c]laims for damages are
retrospective in nature - they compensate for past harm") (emphasis added); Brown v. US Dep 't
of Justice, 169 Fed.Appx. 537, 541 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (rejecting as too speculative
plaintiffs claim for damages based on allegations that documents in her personnel file could
destroy her career). Cf McFarlin, 980 F.2d at 1210 (student's claim for compensatory damages
for civil rights violated resulting from school board's banning her from basketball team without
providing her a hearing was not rendered moot by her graduation).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amended motion to dismiss of Missouri State High
School Activities Association [ECF No. 21] and the motion to dismiss of Francis Howell North
High School and Michael Janes [ECF No. 26] are each GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining pending motions are denied as moot.
[ECF Nos. 2, 13, 17, and 23]
An appropriate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated thi£aay of March 2018
~~~
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?