UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION MINOR I. DOE, et al.; Plaintiffs, v. SCHOOL BOARD FOR SANTA ROSA COUNTY, FLORIDA; et al.; Defendants. / No.: 3:08-cv-361 MCR/EMT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Come now Plaintiffs, by and through the undersigned counsel, and respond to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 19 and 20), 1 and urge this Honorable Court to deny these motions in their entirety, and argue as follows: INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, the Santa Rosa County School Board has cultivated a series of well-established, though unwritten, policies and customs aimed at 1 Defendant H. Frank Lay filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 20) separate from the other Defendants. (Doc. 19). In that motion, Lay adopted and incorporated the arguments of the remaining Defendants’ motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum. Lay Mot. to Dismiss, ¶4. Accordingly, this brief opposes both motions.
25
Embed
Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION MINOR I. DOE, et al.; Plaintiffs, v. SCHOOL BOARD FOR SANTA ROSA COUNTY, FLORIDA; et al.; Defendants. / PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Come now Plaintiffs, by and through the undersigned counsel, and respond to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 19 and 20),1 and urge this Honorable Court to deny these motions in their entirety, and argue as follows: INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, the
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
MINOR I. DOE, et al.;
Plaintiffs,
v.
SCHOOL BOARD FOR SANTA
ROSA COUNTY, FLORIDA; et al.;
Defendants.
/
No.: 3:08-cv-361 MCR/EMT
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Come now Plaintiffs, by and through the undersigned counsel, and
respond to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 19 and 20),1 and urge this
Honorable Court to deny these motions in their entirety, and argue as
follows:
INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, the Santa Rosa County School Board has cultivated
a series of well-established, though unwritten, policies and customs aimed at
1 Defendant H. Frank Lay filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 20) separate from the other
Defendants. (Doc. 19). In that motion, Lay adopted and incorporated the arguments of the
remaining Defendants’ motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum. Lay Mot. to
Dismiss, ¶4. Accordingly, this brief opposes both motions.
Page 2 of 25
promoting religion in District schools. Acting under the authority and
sanction granted by these District-wide policies and customs, officials across
the District have repeatedly subjected students, including Plaintiffs, to
religiously coercive activities and events. Hoping to portray the events at
Pace High as isolated incidents, Defendants have made multiple efforts to
exclude from this lawsuit the officially sponsored religious activities and
events at schools other than Pace High. First, Defendants argued that they
could not possibly respond in time to discovery meant to uncover evidence
of these activities. This Court alleviated that problem by granting
Defendants additional time to comply with Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.
Defendants also moved to strike particular paragraphs of the Complaint that
allege their own acknowledgement that these widespread policies or customs
exist within the District. Plaintiffs’ response to that motion, filed separately,
explains why Defendants’ request should be denied. Now, Defendants seek
to dismiss the case based on Plaintiffs’ purported lack of standing to
challenge events at schools other than Pace High. But there is one major
hitch: Defendants’ motion hinges on a mischaracterization of Plaintiffs’
Establishment Clause claim.
Page 3 of 25
Plaintiffs allege that the School District has established a series of
unwritten, District-wide policies or customs authorizing District schools and
school officials to 1) sponsor and promote prayer at school events, including
graduation; 2) organize, promote, and support religious baccalaureate
services; 3) hold school-sponsored activities at places of worship even when
alternative secular venues are available; and 4) proselytize students.
Plaintiffs further allege that the religious activities and events occurring at
Pace High take place pursuant to these District-wide policies or customs.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs challenge both the constitutionality of the District-
wide, unwritten policies generally, and as they are applied by school
officials at Pace High School.
Plaintiffs do not, as Defendants contend, allege personal injury from, or
seek to challenge, specific applications of these policies or customs at
District schools other than at Pace High. Nor do Plaintiffs seek to assert
claims on behalf of students enrolled at those other schools. Nevertheless,
as explained below, the promotion of religion at other District schools is
central to Plaintiffs’ claim; it evinces the existence of the unwritten, District-
wide policies or customs implemented at Pace High, and it is probative of
the general content, parameters, and application of these policies.
Page 4 of 25
Moreover, Defendants’ campaign to cordon off religious activities at
other District schools from those at Pace High reveals a disregard for, or
misunderstanding of, the fundamental nature of Establishment Clause law:
As the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has put it, “the devil is in
the details.” Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d. 1320, 1322 (11th
Cir. 2006). Thus, even if Plaintiffs were to forgo their broader challenge to
the District-wide policies or customs that authorized the particular violations
at Pace High, the religious activities at other District schools would still be
relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim because they shed light on the purpose, history,
and context associated with the events at Pace High.
FACTS
Plaintiffs, who are students at Pace High School in the School District of
Santa Rosa County, Fla., filed this action in August 2008 against Defendants
School Board for Santa Rosa County, Superintendent John Rogers, and Pace
High Principal H. Frank Lay in order to put an end to Defendants’ repeated
and ongoing violations of Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause rights. See
generally Compl. (Doc.1). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have
maintained, over the past decade, a series of well-established policies or
customs promoting religion. Id. ¶ 21. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that
Page 5 of 25
Defendants have established policies or customs that authorize and
encourage 1) prayer at school events; 2) school-sponsored religious
baccalaureate services; 3) conduct of school events at places of worship; and
4) school officials’ proselytizing of students in class and during
extracurricular activities. Id. Plaintiffs further allege that these policies or
customs are District-wide, as evidenced by the myriad incidents cited in the
Complaint. See id., ¶¶ 23-30, 40-43, 45-52, 53-58. Plaintiffs also set forth
in the Complaint specific examples of school officials’ application of these
District-wide policies at Pace High, including the incorporation of prayer
into graduation ceremonies (id. ¶ 29), school sponsorship of baccalaureate
services (id. ¶ 42), the selection of a religious venue to host a student-awards
ceremony (id. ¶ 51), and faculty proselytizing of students during
extracurricular-club meetings and in the school parking lot (id. ¶¶ 53-57).
Plaintiffs allege particularized injuries proximately caused by
Defendants’ policies or customs and their application at Pace High,
including: (1) personal offense because the policies or customs “promote
religious beliefs to which [Plaintiffs] do[ ] not subscribe and thereby fail to
respect [Plaintiffs’] and others’ religious choices and beliefs (id. ¶¶ 11, 16);
and (2) religious coercion through various applications of Defendants’
Page 6 of 25
policies or customs at Pace High, such as holding school events in places of
worship. Id. ¶ ¶ 11, 16. Plaintiffs ask the court to declare the District’s
policies or customs unconstitutional and to permanently enjoin their
enforcement. Id. p. 30.
LEGAL STANDARD
“A motion to dismiss does not test the merits of a case, but only requires
that the plaintiff’s factual allegations, when assumed to be true, must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Young
Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, 529 F.3d 1027, 1037 (11th Cir. 2008)
(internal quotation/citation omitted). Thus, for purposes of a motion to
dismiss, all factual allegations made in the Complaint must be accepted as
true and construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. Id.
Under Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), and its
progeny, to establish standing in federal court pursuant to Article III, a
plaintiff must demonstrate three points. See DiMaio v. Democratic Nat’l
Comm., 520 F.3d 1299, 1301-02 (11th Cir.2008). First, he must have
suffered an injury in fact, which is concrete and particularized, and actual or
imminent. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. “At the pleading stage, general factual
allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice, for
Page 7 of 25
on a motion to dismiss we ‘presum[e] that general allegations embrace those
specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.’” Id. at 561 (quoting
Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 889 (1990)). Second, there
must be a causal connection between the plaintiff’s injury and the conduct
he challenges. Id. at 560. Third, the plaintiff must properly allege that his
injury will be redressed by a favorable decision of the court. Id. at 561.
ARGUMENT
I. Plaintiffs Have Standing to Challenge Both the School-Sponsored
Religious Events at Pace High and the District-Wide Policies
Authorizing and Encouraging Those Activities.
Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient, at this stage in the litigation, to meet
Lujan’s three-prong test. Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered (and will
continue to suffer) injuries in fact, which are concrete and particularized and
actual or imminent. See Compl. (Doc. 1) ¶¶ 11, 16; Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.
Though, in a effort to shield their religious activities at other schools from
this Court’s scrutiny, Defendants mischaracterize these injuries as narrow in
scope and limited to their conduct at Pace High, Plaintiffs’ alleged harm is
much more expansive, as explained below: Plaintiffs have been injured by
both the religious activities at Pace High and the District-wide policy
authorizing those activities. Plaintiffs further allege a causal connection
Page 8 of 25
between these injuries and the challenged District-wide policies and customs
promoting religion, as well as the application of those policies at Pace High,
and that these injuries will be redressed by a favorable decision of this
Court. See Compl. (Doc. 1) ¶¶ 11, 16 72-80; Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.
Defendants concede, as they must, that Plaintiffs have standing to
challenge events at Pace High School. Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. 19) at 10 n.3
(“For the purposes of this motion only, Defendants concede Does I and II
have standing to assert claims regarding past and future school sponsored
activities at Pace High School.”). As a result of Pace High’s inclusion of
prayer at school events (such as graduation), sponsoring religious
baccalaureate services, holding school-sponsored activities at places of
worship, and proselytizing students, Plaintiffs were “subjected to
unwelcome religious exercises or were forced to assume special burdens to
avoid them.” See Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for
Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 487 n.22 (1982).