HOUSTON – Aldine Independent School District is seeking to dismiss amended litigation brought against it and its superintendent in full, litigation initiated by the mother of a minor child who was sexually assaulted on a District school bus.
LaToya Monroe (on behalf of her minor child, Z.S.) first filed suit against Aldine Independent School District on Dec. 7, 2023 in the Harris County District Court. The case was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on Jan. 12 of this year.
“At all relevant times, plaintiff LaToya Monroe’s six-year-old minor child, Z.S., was enrolled as a student at Aldine ISD. On Feb. 1, 2023, Z.S. returned home without his backpack, and Monroe contacted the school to ask about his missing items. After this inquiry, a police officer contacted Monroe and showed her a video of Z.S. being sexually assaulted by an older student – estimated to be about 12 or 13 years old – while traveling on an Aldine ISD school bus. Monroe then learned that the same student had been assaulting Z.S. on the school bus for several weeks. The older student attended a different school than Z.S., but Aldine ISD had decided to bus students of different schools and ages on the same buses, without a bus monitor,” U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Judge Keith P. Ellison previously stated.
“About a week after the incidents occurred, Monroe noticed the presence of blood after Z.S. used the restroom. She immediately took her son to the hospital. Monroe’s complaint alleges that ‘The distressing sexual assaults suffered by Z.S. during his time on the school bus have left an indelible mark on his emotional, physical, and psychological well-being.’ Following Z.S.’s assault, Monroe and other community advocates called for Aldine ISD to introduce bus aides on all school buses. Monroe also demanded (1) a daily review of camera footage, (2) counseling sessions for Z.S. and his family, (3) the dismissal of supervisors at the Aldine ISD Transportation Center and (4) the filing of charges against the bus driver. Aldine ISD confirmed that the police had begun an investigation and assured Monroe that appropriate actions would be taken.”
Monroe then filed suit in state court (the 215th District Court of Harris County, Texas), bringing the following claims individually and on behalf of Z.S.: (1) Gross negligence; (2) Title IX; (3) 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause and the ‘state-created danger’ doctrine. For these claims, Monroe sought compensatory and punitive damages.
On Jan. 12, defendant removed the action to this Court. The defendants later filed a motion to dismiss on March 22 pursuant to Federal Rules of Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), asking the Court to dismiss all of Monroe’s claims against them.
In a July 31 memorandum opinion, Ellison dismissed the majority of Monroe’s claims without prejudice (giving her an opportunity to re-file her case within two weeks) and permitted the defense to submit another motion to dismiss two weeks after that.
The plaintiff’s first amended complaint (which added District Superintendent LaTonya M. Goffney as a defendant) was filed on Aug. 14, again seeking damages under Title IX and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 through Monell.
UPDATE
In response, Aldine ISD and Goffney returned with a renewed motion to dismiss the case in its entirety on Sept. 11.
“Z.S. does not plead any facts suggesting a Board policy was adopted with deliberate indifference. The only ‘policies’ Z.S. points to are allegedly policies from the District’s Student/Parent Handbook. Yet, the language in the Student/Parent Handbook is not ‘policy’ capable of supporting a claim under Section 1983 and Monell. There are no facts alleged to support a claim that the Board approved the Handbook (or knew anything about its specific contents). The Fifth Circuit rejected similar allegations when a student athlete argued that the Athletic Code of Conduct constituted ‘board policy’ for purposes of a Monell claim against the District. But even if the Handbook did constitute Board policy (it does not), the quoted language from the Handbook discourages and disciplines dangerous behavior on a school bus, which negates any inference that the Board acted with deliberate indifference,” according to the dismissal motion, in part.
“Z.S. also does not plead facts suggesting the Board permitted ‘persistent and widespread practices…i.e., conduct that has become a traditional way of carrying out policy.’ Z.S. alleges that the District had customary policies to allow unsupervised mixed-age bus rides and to not review bus camera footage. However, Z.S. failed to show that these purported customs were unconstitutional or adopted ‘with deliberate indifference to the known or obvious fact that such constitutional violations would result.’ Z.S. also cannot show that there was ‘a direct causal link’ between the purported custom and the violation.
Furthermore, the defendants argued that “Z.S. cannot show deliberate indifference with respect to its alleged custom to allow unsupervised mixed-age bus rides, because there are no factual allegations that suggest the District had this custom because it intended for or knew with substantial certainty that mixing age groups without a bus monitor would lead to Z.S.’s injuries.”
“Furthermore, Z.S. certainly does not allege that the Board knew about these allegations. As this Court aptly pointed out in its memorandum and opinion granting the District’s [first] motion to dismiss, Z.S.’s facts “do not demonstrate that it was ‘so obvious’ that middle school students riding unsupervised on a bus with elementary school students will sexually assault younger students, so as to require bus monitors and/or age-segregate buses,” the motion continued.
“Likewise, Z.S. cannot argue that the District had a custom to not review video footage because it intended for or knew with substantial certainty that Z.S. would be sexually assaulted by an older student. In fact, Z.S.’s admission that the District did not review the bus cameras further supports the inescapable conclusion that the board of trustees, the policymaker, was not aware of Z.S.’s sexual abuse. Moreover, the District’s alleged policy of not reviewing bus footage could not have been the moving force behind Z.S.’s injuries, as Z.S. did not plead facts that show that the middle school student knew the District did not review camera footage, and that is why he sexually assaulted Z.S. Absent these allegations, Z.S. cannot show a ‘direct causal link’ between the alleged policy and the violation.”
According to the defendants, “Z.S. only alleges one prior incident of inappropriate touching that may or may not have involved Z.S. and may or may not have involved mixed-aged students. However, a single unsubstantiated incident does not show a widespread pattern of inappropriate sexual conduct on a school bus.”
The plaintiff is represented by B’Ivory LaMarr of The LaMarr Firm in Houston, plus Sheridan Todd Yeary of The Yeary Firm, in Baltimore, Md.
The defendant is represented by Alexa Taylor Gould and Christopher B. Gilbert of Thompson & Horton, also in Houston.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas case 4:24-cv-00139
From the Southeast Texas Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com