Edwards v. Central Falls School District et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 11 State of Rhode Island's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim- So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 8/11/2017 (Barletta, Barbara)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CENTRAL FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT;
)
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
AMBER EDWARDS,

C.A. No. 17-132 S

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
In June 2016, Plaintiff Amber Edwards worked for Defendant
Central

Falls

Partner.

School

District

as

a

Digital

Media

Community

On June 29, 2016, she escorted a disruptive student

from the classroom to the school’s office.

Later that day, she

was accused of inappropriately touching the student, was told
that she would be suspended from teaching the following day, and
then resigned from her position because “Defendant wrongfully
made

working

conditions

so

intolerable

at

that

point

for

Plaintiff that she was forced to resign.” 1
Plaintiff
including

1

the

brought

this

Central

suit

Falls

Compl. ¶ 56, ECF No. 1.

against

several

School

District

defendants,
and

its

Superintendent;

the

Central

Falls

School

District

Board

of

Trustees; the City of Central Falls; the principal and assistant
principal of Calcutt Middle School; the Director of 21st Century
Programs at Central Falls School District; and the State of
Rhode

Island.

“Defendants”

Plaintiff

as

a

alleged

collective,

five

including

claims

violations

against
of

her

procedural due process and equal protection rights; defamation
per se; negligence; and negligent hiring, training, supervision
and retention.
Before

the

Court

is

Defendant

State

of

Rhode

Island’s

Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim
upon

which

relief

may

be

granted.

The

State

argues

that

Plaintiff has failed to allege a valid claim against it because
the

Complaint

only

mentions

the

State

specifically

in

one

paragraph 2, and leaves the State without any knowledge of the
factual basis for Plaintiff’s claims.

In Plaintiff’s objection,

she asserts that she included the State as a Defendant because
it

“may

be

responsible

for

the

unlawful

conduct

of

actors,

agents, and officials of the [Central Falls School] District”

2

Paragraph 5 of the Complaint states, in its entirety, that
“Defendant State of Rhode Island, sued by and through its
Governor Gina Raimondo, may be[sic], upon information and
belief, have responsibility for the Central Falls School
District, rather than the City of Central Falls.”
2

and “the City was believed to be in State receivership at the
time that the unlawful conduct occurred.” 3 Plaintiff contends
that discovery is needed to determine whether the State was
financially responsible for the City and the School District at
the time of the alleged unlawful conduct. 4
As the State points out in their reply memorandum, the
receivership

of

the

City

was

terminated

on

April

16,

2013. 5

Therefore, the State’s fiscal control over the City of Central
Falls

ended

three

years

prior

precipitated this litigation.

to

the

alleged

events

that

Because Plaintiff does not assert

any factual allegations against the State or any official acting

3

Pl.’s Obj. to Defs.’ Mot. 8, ECF No. 13-1.

4

The State also argues that Plaintiff’s claims brought
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be dismissed because, according to
the Supreme Court, the State is not considered a “person” under
§ 1983.
In her objection, Plaintiff clarifies that she is not
alleging that the State violated her constitutional rights, only
that the State may have had fiscal control over the other
Defendants.
5

See In re City of Cent. Falls, Rhode Island, No. 11-13105FJB, 2015 WL 12991580, at *7 (Bankr. D.R.I. Nov. 13, 2015).
Moreover, pursuant to Rule 201(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the Court takes judicial notice of the Annual Status
Report filed with the District of Rhode Island’s Bankruptcy
Court by the Administration and Finance Officer for the City of
Central Falls with the District of Rhode Island’s Bankruptcy
Court. (Case No. 11-13105, ECF No. 696-1.) In the July 24, 2013
status report, the Administration and Finance Officer attested
that “[t]he abolition of the Receiver occurred on April 16, 2013
whereby the governance of the City of Central Falls was returned
to its elected officials[.]” (Id.)
3

on behalf of the State, the Court finds that the Complaint does
not state a plausible claim for relief against the State. 6
Court

therefore

concludes

dismissed from this case.

that

this

Defendant

should

The
be

The State of Rhode Island’s Motion to

Dismiss (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: August 11, 2017

6

See Coll. Hill Properties, LLC v. City of Worcester, 821
F.3d 193, 195–96 (1st Cir. 2016) (“To survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.’ 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.”) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citation omitted)).
4