Edwards v. Central Falls School District et al
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
CENTRAL FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT;
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, et al.,
C.A. No. 17-132 S
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
In June 2016, Plaintiff Amber Edwards worked for Defendant
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
Plaintiff that she was forced to resign.” 1
Compl. ¶ 56, ECF No. 1.
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
procedural due process and equal protection rights; defamation
per se; negligence; and negligent hiring, training, supervision
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
Plaintiff has failed to allege a valid claim against it because
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
agents, and officials of the [Central Falls School] District”
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.”
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
Therefore, the State’s fiscal control over the City of Central
precipitated this litigation.
Because Plaintiff does not assert
any factual allegations against the State or any official acting
Pl.’s Obj. to Defs.’ Mot. 8, ECF No. 13-1.
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
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
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.)
on behalf of the State, the Court finds that the Complaint does
not state a plausible claim for relief against the State. 6
dismissed from this case.
The State of Rhode Island’s Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Date: August 11, 2017
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)).
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?