Irwin v. West Irondequoit Central School District, Fernanda Bonavilla et al
DECISION AND ORDER granting 3 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 12 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. The amended complaint is dismissed. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 3/2/2017. (EMS)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
( ·. >·
ADDISON IRWIN and GEORGE IRWIN,
DECISION AND ORDER
WEST IRONDEQUOIT CENTRAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT, FERNANDA BONAVILLA,
individually and in her official capacity as an
employee of the West Irondequoit Central School
District, JEFFREY CRANE, individually and in
his capacity as the Superintendent of the West
Irondequoit Central School District, and other
known and unknown employees of the WEST
IRONDEQUOIT CENTRAL SCHOOL
Plaintiffs Addison Irwin ("Addison") and George Irwin ("George") (collectively,
"Plaintiffs") commenced this action by filing a complaint on January 19, 2016. (Dkt. 1).
They then filed an Amended Complaint on January 25, 2016.
Amended Complaint, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserts constitutional claims arising
out of Addison being denied permission to participate in a high school class trip to Italy.
(See generally id.).
The Amended Complaint names as defendants: (1) the West
Irondequoit Central School District ("WICSD"); (2) WICSD teacher Fernanda Bonavilla
("Bonavilla"), individually and in her official capacity; (3) WICSD Superintendent
Jeffrey Crane ("Crane"), individually and in his official capacity; and (4) other known
and unknown employees of WICSD (collectively, "Defendants"). (Id. at iii! 2-4).
Pending before the Court are Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 3), and Plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint (Dkt. 12). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion to
dismiss is granted, and Plaintiffs cross-motion for leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint is denied as futile.
The following facts are drawn from the Amended Complaint. Addison, a student
in the WICSD, took Italian language classes from the seventh through the eleventh grade.
(Id. at iii! 7-9). One reason that he continuously enrolled in those classes "was so that he
could go on a class trip to Italy customarily offered by defendants to junior year students
at the Irondequoit High School" (id. at if 8), and he expected that he would be permitted
to go on that trip (id. at ir 9). In July 2014, Addison's parents made a deposit toward the
trip. (Id. at ii 10).
In November 2014, Addison's parents received a phone call from the Italian
language teacher, Bonavilla, who told them that Addison would not be permitted to go on
the trip because he was "not doing well in class," his "attendance was poor," and he
"would be a 'liability'"; however, Bonavilla "would not identify the nature of the alleged
liability." (Id. at irir 11-13). Before receiving Bonavilla's phone call, neither Addison nor
his parents were advised that he would be ineligible to participate in the trip for poor
performance or attendance or that there were any eligibility requirements at all. (Id. at
iii! 14-15). Shortly after Bonavilla's phone call to Addison's parents, she told all students
participating in the trip that they could do so only if they had adequate grades and
attendance. (Id. at ii 16).
After Bonavilla's phone call, George and Superintendent Crane set up a meeting
regarding Bonavilla's decision. (Id. at
iii! 17-18). During the meeting, Crane "declined
to identify the nature of the 'liability' posed by Addison" and stated that it was a "grey
area" as to whether the trip was a private or school function.
iJ 19). Crane
"refused to consider any of the arguments advanced by [George] Irwin and declined to
reverse the decision made by ... Bonavilla." (Id. at
ii 20). Bonavilla promoted the trip
during Addison's Italian classes. (Id. at ii 21).
As a result of not being permitted to go on the trip and being humiliated in front of
his classmates, Addison dropped his Italian classes. (Id. at
iJ 22). Addison transferred
out of WICSD and enrolled at a different school, where George must pay tuition and
where Addison-an award-winning lacrosse player-can no longer play lacrosse, "which
has necessitated him participating in a club team from Massachusetts in an effort to
maintain his visibility to college scouts."
iii! 23-26). Addison also suffered
emotional trauma, requiring professional treatment. (Id. at ii 27).
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants acted under the color of state law to deprive them
of their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. at
Plaintiffs also claim that "Plaintiffs' civil rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution,
statutes, common law and case law of the United States and of New York state were
willfully violated by the Defendants."
if 30). They seek punitive damages,
attorney's fees, and costs. (Id. at 5-6).
On February 11, 2016, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing, inter alia, that Plaintiffs
have failed to plead any constitutional violation because Addison had no constitutional
right to attend the Italy trip, and Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege the necessary
elements of an Equal Protection claim. (Dkt. 3; Dkt. 3-1at12-18).
Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' motion to dismiss was due on May 9, 2016
(Dkt. 7). That day, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 9), without first
obtaining consent of either Defendants or the Court (Dkt. 12-1 at if 13). The parties then
stipulated to an extension of time for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants' motion to
dismiss and for Plaintiffs to file a cross-motion to amend. (Dkt. 10). On May 18, 2016,
Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion seeking leave to file the Second Amended Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and a response in partial opposition
to Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 12; Dkt. 12-3 at 2-5).
The Second Amended Complaint differs from the Amended Complaint with
respect to the parties involved, the facts alleged, and the claims asserted. The Second
Amended Complaint does not name George as a plaintiff, leaving Addison as the sole
plaintiff; moreover, Bonavilla and Crane are sued only individually and not in their
official capacities. (Dkt. 12-2 at 2). The Second Amended Complaint adds the following
factual allegations: (1) Addison and his parents were not "advised of any 'liability'
presented by his participation in the trip" before placing a deposit or receiving
Bonavilla's phone call; (2) "Addison suffers from no physical or mental disability, which
would make him a 'liability"'; and (3) no members of his class were advised of eligibility
requirements for the trip. (Id. at 4). The Second Amended Complaint also adds a claim
that Defendants retaliated against Addison for exercising his First Amendment rights,
based on the following assertions:
Since Addison has no physical or mental impairments which would make
him a "liability" on the class trip, upon information and belief, this
reference must be to something Addison allegedly said or did. Addison has
never said or done anything which would pose a threat to the safety, good
order, or discipline of the school.
(Id. at 7).
On June 15, 2016, Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs' crossmotion to amend and a reply in further support of the motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 13).
Defendants argue, inter alia, that amendment would be futile (Dkt. 13-3 at 6-7), and that
Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims are deficient because Defendants' alleged actions did not occur
under the color of state law because the Italy "trip is not a sponsored activity of the
[WICSD] or High School," and "Plaintiff has presented no reason that the alleged actions
of Ms. Bonavilla are attributable to the school. ... " (id. at 7-9). In support of the latter
argument, Defendants rely on declarations by Bonavilla and Crane. (Id. at 8-9; see also
Dkt. 13-1; Dkt. 13-2).
The parties appeared before the undersigned at a motion hearing regarding the
motion to dismiss and cross-motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint on
October 25, 2016, at which time the Court reserved decision. (Dkt. 16).
Motion to Dismiss
In considering a motion to dismiss, a court generally may only consider "facts
stated in the complaint or documents attached to the complaint as exhibits or incorporated
by reference." Nechis v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 421 F.3d 96, 100 (2d Cir. 2005). A
court should consider the motion "accepting all factual allegations in the complaint and
drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Ruotolo v. City of New York,
514 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). To withstand dismissal, a plaintiff
must set forth "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "'A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."' Turkmen v. Ashcroft, 589 F.3d
542, 546 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)); see also
Nielsen v. Rabin, 746 F.3d 58, 62 (2d Cir. 2014) ("The plausibility standard is not akin to
a probability requirement. A well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a
savvy judge that actual proof of the facts alleged is improbable, and that a recovery is
very remote and unlikely." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
"While a complaint attacked by a Rule l 2(b)( 6) motion to dismiss does not need
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his
'entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
(alteration and citations omitted).
Thus, "at a bare minimum, the operative standard
requires the 'plaintiff to provide the grounds upon which his claim rests through factual
allegations sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level."' Goldstein v.
Pataki, 516 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir. 2008) (alteration and citations omitted).
A. Claims by George Irwin and Official Capacity Claims
Given that Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint eliminates the claims by
George and against Bonavilla and Crane in their official capacities, Plaintiffs concede
that George is not a proper party to this action and that the official capacity claims are
meritless. (See Dkt. 12-3 at 2 n.l). Accordingly, the Court dismisses those claims and
need not consider them on the merits.
Even if Plaintiffs had not conceded those points, Defendants rightly argue that
those claims should be dismissed. (Dkt. 3-1 at 10-12). First, George lacks standing to
bring the asserted § 1983 claims based solely on the deprivation of the constitutional
rights of his son, Addison. See, e.g., Kaminski v. Comm 'r of Oneida Cty. Dep 't of Soc.
Servs., 804 F. Supp. 2d 100, 104-05 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) ("[P]arents lack standing to bring
claims individually pursuant to § 1983 based solely upon a deprivation of a child's
constitutional rights."); Rodenhouse v. Palmyra-Macedon Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 07-CV6438 CJS, 2008 WL 2331314, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. June 3, 2008) (same); Morgan v. City of
New York, 166 F. Supp. 2d 817, 819 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (same).
Second, the official capacity claims against the individual defendants are
duplicative of the same claims against the school district. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S.
21, 25 (1991) ("[O]fficial-capacity suits generally represent only another way of pleading
an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent." (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted)); see also Barmore v. Aida/a, 419 F. Supp. 2d 193, 202 (N.D.N.Y.
2005) (dismissing official capacity claim against Board of Education President as
redundant where the Board of Education was also named as a defendant on the basis that
"it is well settled that a claim against a defendant in his official capacity is one and the
same as a claim against the entity that the individual represents").
B. § 1983 Claim
"To state a§ 1983 claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant deprived him
of a federal or constitutional right while acting under the color of state law." Cox v.
Warwick Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 267, 272 (2d Cir. 2011). 1
1. Due Process
Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim is based on a purported violation of the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arising out of
"[D]efendants' decision to disqualify Addison from the trip without the warnings which
were subsequently given to other similarly situated students." (Dkt. 2 at
Court's view, this premise would more logically give rise to a due process claim. The
For the first time in opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend, Defendants
raise the argument that there was no state action. (Dkt. 13-3 at 3-5). The Court need not
address the state action requirement because, as discussed, Plaintiffs have failed to state
an Equal Protection claim.
characterization of Plaintiffs' claim as an Equal Protection violation is somewhat
strained, and indeed, appears to be an attempt to avoid the unfavorable conclusion that
would result from raising a due process claim.
As discussed below, had Plaintiffs
asserted a due process claim arising out of Addison's disqualification from the Italy trip,
it would be meritless.
"The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects persons against
deprivations of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and "those who seek
to invoke its procedural protection must establish that one of these interests is at stake.""
Victory v. Pataki, 814 F.3d 47, 59 (2d Cir. 2016), as amended (Feb. 24, 2016) (citation
omitted). The Second Circuit has held that, while there is no federal constitutional right
to an education, New York State's education laws "create a property interest in education
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." Handberry v. Thompson, 446 F.3d 335, 353
(2d Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has held that a state must "recognize a student's
legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property interest which is protected by
the Due Process Clause and which may not be taken away for misconduct without
adherence to the minimum procedures required by that Clause." Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S.
565, 574 (1974).
The Second Circuit, citing Goss, concluded in Kajoshaj v. New York City
Department of Education, 543 F. App'x 11 (2d Cir. 2013), that a student could not
establish a deprivation of due process arising out of the school's decision to hold the
student back. Id. at 16. The Second Circuit reasoned that the student was not denied
access to the state's educational system as a result of not being promoted to the next
Also interpreting Goss, the court in Mazevski v. Horseheads Central School
District, 950 F. Supp. 69 (W.D.N.Y. 1997), concluded that a public high school student
did not have a constitutional right to participate in any specific curricular or
extracurricular activity. Id. at 72. In that case, the student and his parents brought a
§ 1983 claim against the school district and school employees, asserting that those
defendants violated the student's constitutional right to procedural due process when he
was dismissed from the marching band for misconduct.
Id. at 69-70.
therefore, was whether the student had a protectible property interest in participating in
the marching band, subject to constitutional protection. See id. at 71. The court held that
the student did not, reasoning that the protected property interest contemplated by Goss
was "the right to participate in the entire educational process," but "not the right to
participate in each individual component of that process." Id. at 72 (citing Goss, 419
U.S. at 576, 579). As a result, the court held that a student's "exclusion from a particular
course, event or activity is of no constitutional import." Id. The court reasoned that a
contrary rule would be unwise:
If the rule were otherwise, every disgruntled student (or, more likely,
disgruntled parent) who believed she should not have been dropped from
the pep squad, or who believed he should not have been benched for
missing a team meeting, or who challenged his failure to be selected to take
advance placement courses, could commence an action in federal court to
challenge the decision of the school's administrators. This should not be.
Id. at 73.
- 10 -
Other district courts in this Circuit have interpreted Goss to conclude that students
do not have ·a constitutional interest in certain school events or activities. In one case, the
court held that a student did not have a protectible interest in participating in a school's
foreign language program. See Toth ex rel. Toth v. Bd. of Educ., Queens Dist. 25, No.
07-CV-3239 (SLT)(JO), 2008 WL 4527833, at *5-6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2008). Other
decisions in this Circuit have similarly concluded that no deprivation of a student's
property interest results from not being allowed to participate in certain school activities.
See, e.g., Immaculate Heart Cent. Sch. v. N. Y. State Pub. High Sch. Athletic Assoc., 797
F. Supp. 2d 204, 216-17 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (granting motion to dismiss because
"participation in interscholastic athletics is not protected by due process"); Hadley v.
Rush Henrietta Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 05-CV-6331 T, 2007 WL 1231753, at *3 (W.D.N.Y.
Apr. 25, 2007) ("It is firmly established that there is no constitutional right to participate
in extracurricular sporting activities."); see also S.C. v. Monroe Woodbury Cent. Sch.
Dist., No. l l-CV-1672 (CS), 2012 WL 2940020, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2012) (finding
no deprivation of student's property interest in public education where public school
district purportedly failed to remedy bullying and harassment, causing student to enroll in
private school, because school district did not suspend student or prevent him from
enrolling in another school within the district).
Based on the foregoing case law, it is clear that Defendants' actions-failing to
warn Addison about any eligibility requirements for the trip and disqualifying him from
the trip-did not deprive him of his "right to participate in the entire educational
process." Mazevski, 950 F. Supp. at 72. Accordingly, even if Plaintiffs had asserted a
- 11 -
due process claim, Addison had no protectible interest in participating in the Italy trip,
and thus cannot establish a due process violation.
2. Equal Protection
The claim that Plaintiffs did assert-an Equal Protection violation-fares no
better. In their opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs clarify that they
have asserted a "class of one" Equal Protection Claim. (Dkt. 12-3 at 3). A "class of one"
claim is one in which "the plaintiff alleges that [he] has been intentionally treated
differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the
difference in treatment." Vil!. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). "[l]n
order to succeed on a "class of one" claim, the similarity between plaintiffs and the
persons with whom they compare themselves must be extremely high."
D'Angelis, 409 F.3d 100, 104 (2d Cir. 2005), rev'd on other grounds, Appel v. Spiridon,
531 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008).
Here, while Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint references "other similarly situated
students" (Dkt. 2 at
29), it fails to set forth any facts that identify those students and
how their circumstances are similar to his.
In opposition to Defendants' motion to
dismiss, Plaintiffs elaborate that the comparators are "other students who were accepted
for the trip to Italy." (Dkt. 12-3 at 3-4). Even with that minor elaboration, Plaintiffs fail
to identify how those students' circumstances were similar to Addison's circumstances.
Absent from Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is any allegation that Defendants treated
students with purported attendance and performance issues differently than they treated
Addison or let such students participate in the trip. See Neilson, 409 F.3d at 104; see also
- 12 -
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (explaining that plaintiff must provide "more than labels and
conclusions" to survive a motion to dismiss).
Also absent is any allegation that
Defendants' differential treatment was intentional. See Olech, 528 U.S. at 564 (requiring
allegation of intentional disparate treatment). Moreover, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
fails to include any allegation that Defendants lacked a rational basis for treating Addison
differently than the students similarly situated to him. See id. (requiring arbitrariness).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to state an Equal Protection claim as to any of the
Defendants, and the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss as to this claim.
C. State Law Claims
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint briefly asserts that their civil rights, as guaranteed
by New York State law, were violated. (Dkt. 2
identify the nature of the state law claims.
30). Plaintiffs failed to develop or
However, to the extent that the fleeting
reference to state law means that Plaintiffs have alleged state law claims, the Court
declines to exercise jurisdiction over them, given that Plaintiffs' federal claims should be
dismissed. See Valencia ex rel. Franco v. Lee, 316 F.3d 299, 305 (2d Cir. 2003) ("(I]n
the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of
factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine-judicial economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity-will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction
over the remaining state law claims." (quotation omitted)).
dismisses the state law claims without prejudice.
- 13 -
Accordingly, the Court
Motion to Amend Complaint
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that the Court "should freely give
leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. l 5(a)(2). Nevertheless, "it is
within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend."
McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F .3d 184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007). "A district
court has discretion to deny leave for good reason, including futility, bad faith, undue
delay, or undue prejudice to the opposing party."
Here, Defendants oppose
amendment on the ground of futility. (Dkt. 13-3 at 11-12).
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action, and
therefore, any amendment would be futile. Dougherty v. Town of N. Hempstead Bd. of
Zoning Appeals, 282 F .3d 83, 88 (2d Cir. 2002) (holding that amendment is futile if the
proposed amended complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted).
The Second Amended Complaint does not materially change or elaborate on the factual
allegations in support of Plaintiffs' Equal Protection Claim. Thus, that claim is deficient
for the same reasons set forth above.
Plaintiffs' proposed First Amendment retaliation claim is also deficient. "To state
a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) his speech or
conduct was protected by the First Amendment; (2) the defendant took an adverse action
against him; and (3) there was a causal connection between this adverse action and the
protected speech." Cox v. Warwick Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 267, 272 (2d Cir.
2011). Here, Plaintiffs' facts are too vague and speculative to support a First Amendment
Plaintiffs have not identified the protected speech or conduct by
- 14 -
Addison on which the retaliation claim is based, let alone any speech or conduct at all.
Indeed, Plaintiffs only speculate that Defendants' proffered reason for disqualifying
Addison-that he was a "liability"-"must be [a reference] to something Addison
allegedly said or did." (Dkt. 12-2 at
ii 39). Accordingly, amendment would be futile
because Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action.
Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 3) is granted,
Plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 12) is
denied, and the Amended Complaint is dismissed.
Dated: March 2, 2017
Rochester, New York
- 15 -
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?