UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

Similar documents
Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

CASE 0:12-cv RHK-SER Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:13-cv SEB-TAB Document 1 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1

Case 3:14-cv HU Document 1 Filed 04/23/14 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 01/21/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1

Case 2:14-cv DB Document 2 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 10

Case 5:11-cv FB Document 1 Filed 09/06/11 Page 1 of 14

Case 5:14-cv OLG Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, STATE OF COLORADO Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80202

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv JD-SLC document 1 filed 06/19/15 page 1 of 5

Case 2:12-cv JRG Document 1 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Complaint. Credit Extension Uniformity Act 73 P.S. 2270, et seq.

Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 07/11/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE DIVISION. MELISSA ROWE, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of E.R

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BROWARD DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No.: COMPLAINT

Case 5:11-cv SWW Document 4 Filed 08/18/11 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

Case 1:10-cv Document 1 Filed 05/24/10 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Case 4:09-cv RCC Document 1 Filed 09/04/09 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff,

How To File A Lawsuit Against A Corporation In California

Case 4:15-cv RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII. Case No.: CV-06-00~CK-LEK

Case 1:12-cv RLV-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/14/12 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Haro was at home with his family when they saw an intruder lurking in their backyard. When

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Case 1:12-cv RJJ Doc #28 Filed 06/10/13 Page 1 of 15 Page ID#165 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Case: 1:15-cv CAB Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/08/15 1 of 10. PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case 4:14-cv A Document 1 Filed 04/10/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

virtue of Title VIII of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Section 806 of the Corporate and

Case 2:13-cv RBS Document 1 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:10-cv NBF Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 3:14-cv MMD-VPC Document 12-1 Filed 02/12/14 Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT 1

Complaint as permitted by Case Management Order # 4 and Implementing Order PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

- Violations of 42 U.S.C. $ Supplemental State Claims

Plaintiff, MICHAEL REBECK, by his attorneys, STEVENS, HINDS & WHITE, P.C., Preliminary Statement

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

How to Write a Complaint

No. Plaintiff Kelvin Bledsoe ( Plaintiff ), by his undersigned counsel, brings claims

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

Case 5:14-cv IPJ Document 1 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 17

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, WEST DISTRICT

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SOMEWHERE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. Plaintiff, TARIN SAROKA, individually, and as the Personal Representative of the

LIMITATION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS ACT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE NO. Defendant

Case 1:13-cv Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 1 of 9 : : : : : : : : : : :

Case 3:10-cv DRD Document 31 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 9

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND. of police reports in bad faith. Plaintiff claims that Defendants acted willfully, wantonly and in

Court File No. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. BETWEEN: JEAN-FRANCOIS FARJON and REBECCA SOROKA. -and-

r 15 FRIDOON RAWSHAN NEHAD, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COWETA COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

Case 3:14-cv AC Document 10 Filed 03/26/14 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#: 43

DEALING WITH POLICE MISCONDUCT OR EXCESSIVE FORCE IN WISCONSIN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY FLORIDA. Case No.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION

2:13-cv BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 06/24/13 Pg 1 of 14 Pg ID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION. Case No. :

EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PRACTICES LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Case 1:16-cv NYW Document 1 Filed 01/29/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT LAW DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR THURSTON COUNTY

CASE 0:12-cv RHK-TNL Document 1 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KANAWHA COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA V. CIVIL ACTION NO:

CAUSE NO. DC

Case 8:14-cv VMC-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID 1

Case 0:13-cv RSR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 9

Plaintiff Carol Parker ( Plaintiff ), residing at 32 Coleman Way, Jackson, NJ 08527, by her undersigned counsel, alleges the following upon personal

Case 4:15-cv A Document 1 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID 1

Chapter 11 Torts in the Business Environment

Sanitary Sewer Leads Homeowner Responsibility

Case: 4:15-cv Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/10/15 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DISTRICT

PREVIEW PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS DOCUMENT THANK YOU. LegalFormsForTexas.Com

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, SALT LAKE COUNTY STATE OF UTAH. Case No. : Judge:

Transcription:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE BRANDY MADDEN, individually and as natural mother and next friend of C.T., a minor child v. Plaintiff, HAMILTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant. No. JURY DEMAND COMPLAINT I. PARTIES. 1. The Plaintiff, Brandy Madden, ( Madden, is an adult citizen and resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee. She brings this suit on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter, C.T. ( C.T., who is under eighteen years of age and is likewise a citizen and resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee. 2. The Defendant, Hamilton County Department of Education ( HCDE, is a governmental entity performing statutory public education duties in Hamilton County, Tennessee. II. VENUE. 3. The wrongful acts and omissions complained of herein occurred within the geographic confines of the Eastern District of Tennessee. Case 1:13-cv-00377-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/12/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1

III. JURISDICTION. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over the instant controversy not only by virtue of 42 U.S.C. 1983 but also by virtue of Defendant s violation of those rights guaranteed to minor Plaintiff by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, specifically and respectively the rights to be free from unreasonable searches and the right to substantive due process. Furthermore, HCDE is liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for its failure to have in place any policy, written or unwritten, concerning appropriate, lawful conduct for dealing with readily foreseeable circumstances such as those articulated in this Complaint and by failing to provide any training whatsoever to HCDE employees, such as the school nurse, in dealing with such circumstances. In that this litigation is predicated on one or more federal questions, this Court s jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. 1343. IV. ALLEGATIONS. 5. On or about August 16, 2012, minor Plaintiff C.T. was a student enrolled at Apison Elementary School which is part of the Hamilton County School System. 6. Minor Plaintiff C.T. was five (5 years old at the time she attended Apison Elementary School. 7. On or about August 16, 2012, Brandy Madden, C.T. s mother, gave written notice to the school that minor Plaintiff had congenital herpes simplex and indicated how to treat it. 8. At no time did the school contact the adult Plaintiff (mother about any issues relating to her daughter s disease until on or about November 12, 2012. 9. The minor Plaintiff is a little girl of 6 years of age. 10. At no time did the minor Plaintiff indicate that she was experiencing a medical emergency. Case 1:13-cv-00377-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/12/13 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 2

11. Nevertheless, the school called the adult Plaintiff, Madden, and said it was urgent that she leave work and come and pick up her child from school as soon as possible because the minor Plaintiff C.T. was contagious. 12. The school asked that a statement be provided to the school from a doctor indicating that the minor Plaintiff C.T. was not contagious and could return to school. 13. The next day, November 13, 2012, a letter was given to the school from Dr. Huff, the Chief of Pediatric Infectious Disease indicating that minor Plaintiff C.T s lesions, as long as they are covered, were not contagious. This letter was immediately given to the school. Exhibit A. 14. On November 13, 2012, the adult Plaintiff Madden called the principal and told him that she had sent a doctor s statement indicating that minor Plaintiff C.T. was not contagious and she asked to have her daughter, minor Plaintiff, return to school. 15. The principal indicated that the mother would have to speak to Sheryl Rogers, a nurse with the HCDE School Health Program Office, because minor Plaintiff C.T. cannot return to school with a lesion contrary to Dr. Huff s letter. 16. Sheryl Rogers stated that minor Plaintiff C.T. could not return to school despite the fact that the adult Plaintiff had a doctor s statement and despite the fact that the lesion was covered by a bandage, sock and shoe. 17. The adult Plaintiff then spoke with the school nurse, Sonya Neal, and asked her how the school became aware that minor Plaintiff C.T. had a lesion. 18. The school nurse said that acting under the direction of Sheryl Rogers that she had been removing all of the minor Plaintiff s clothes on a daily basis for several weeks, looking at all areas of the minor Plaintiff s body, including her genitals. Case 1:13-cv-00377-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/12/13 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 3

19. The adult Plaintiff was shocked, upset and hurt to learn these facts. Neither Sonya Neal, Sheryl Rogers, nor anyone with HCDE or Apison Elementary obtained adult Plaintiff s consent to remove all of the minor Plaintiff s clothes and inspect the minor Plaintiff s body. 20. The adult Plaintiff immediately asked that the school cease and desist any type of strip searching. 21. Neither Sonya Neal nor any other person associated with Apison Elementary School obtained adult Plaintiff s consent to perform the acts described, nor did any such person seek, or obtain, the consent of minor Plaintiff s father, even though Apison Elementary School had available telephone contact numbers. 22. Neither Sonya Neal nor any other person affiliated with Apison Elementary School, had any reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that minor Plaintiff had a medical emergency, needed medical care, had been sexually abused, or injured; just the contrary. No crime or wrongdoing was suspected. Nor was there any emergent medical needs present. 23. At no time did the school ask permission to strip search the minor Plaintiff. 24. At no time was it necessary for the school to strip search the minor Plaintiff as the adult Plaintiff (mother had been taking care of the child for five years and knew how to treat any outbreaks without spreading the disease. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the illegal activities of Defendant, the Plaintiff had to take off work for several days and ultimately lost her job. 26. The Defendant school knew the minor Plaintiff had a congenital disease yet they treated her differently from the other students subjecting her to unwarranted and unnecessary strip searches without any reason whatsoever. Case 1:13-cv-00377-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/12/13 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 4

27. National and state nursing guidelines restrict medical examinations of students and prohibit a genital examination of a student absent parental consent or a medical emergency. 28. The school failed to follow their own guidelines, failed to provide the school nurse with adequate training and negligently searched the minor Plaintiff and negligently kept the minor Plaintiff from attending school. 29. The search of minor Plaintiff s body herein described was a per se violation of minor Plaintiff s Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and an invasion of her privacy, as aforesaid. 30. The Defendant violated a school child s right to personal security and to bodily integrity embraces the right to be free from sexual abuse at the hands of a public school employee. The substantive component of the Due Process clause of the Constitution protects students against governmental power as exercised by a school. Poe v. Leonard, 282 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2002. 31. The Defendant violated a constitutionally protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment in refusing unwanted medical treatment. 32. The Defendant, by and through its agents and employees, Sonya Neal, the principal, Sheryl Rogers, and all other persons in positions of authority at Apison Elementary, knew or in the exercise of reasonable prudence and diligence should have known what was tantamount to a strip search of minor Plaintiff, under the circumstances described was clearly unconstitutional under clearly established law. To the extent 42 U.S.C. 1983 is deemed a jurisdictional predicate, Defendant s wrongful acts and omissions were acts and omissions under color of law in the course and scope of their employment with HCDE. Case 1:13-cv-00377-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/12/13 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 5

33. At all times pertinent, HCDE had in place no policy whatsoever, written or otherwise, for persons such as Neal to follow or refer to when faced with circumstances such as those presented in this case. HCDE s policy was worse than merely inadequate. If was in fact non-existent. Consequently, HCDE systematically provided no training or guidance at all for school nurses faced with a situation in which a decision as to whether or not to perform an invasive and intrusive physical examination on a student had to be made, even though HCDE knew that the right of all students to enjoy the Constitutional protection from unreasonable searches was well-established. 34. The Defendant HCDE s failure to both have in place such a policy and its concomitant systematic failure to provide training and guidance as aforesaid was entirely deliberate. Metro had actual knowledge that such circumstances presenting themselves in a school setting was and is a certainty. Many other students have congenital herpes who attend HCDE schools. Even in view of that knowledge, HCDE never implemented any policy at all, nor did it provide any training or guidance for school nurses such as Sonya Neal. HCDE s failure to provide such training or guidance evidences the Defendant HCDE s deliberate indifference to the rights of students with whom school nurses come in contact. This intentional failure to train or even provide guidance in the face of easily anticipated incidents and consequences is conduct which shocks the conscience of any reasonable, informed, and objective observer. This systematic failure to train and provide guidance made Constitutional violation as such as the one that occurred in this case almost inevitable, or substantially certain to result. Students routinely fall ill, routinely sustain physical injuries in a school setting, and routinely report symptoms to school authorities and as a result of HCDE s deliberately indifferent failure to provide guidance and training for school nurses, a violation of the Constitutional rights of students coming in Case 1:13-cv-00377-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/12/13 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 6

contact with school nurses was virtually guaranteed. School nurses as a group were not and are not learned in the law. HCDE s systematic policy of not having in place any training or guidance as aforesaid subjects it to liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 35. The Defendant HCDE s failure to have in place a policy and its failure to train, as aforesaid, and Neal s concomitant wrongful acts and omissions as fully articulate in this Complaint, singly and in combination, caused minor Plaintiff s Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive Due Process to be violated. Minor Plaintiff had an unequivocal substantive Due Process right to the privacy of her naked body, which right is even more clearly ingrained in the case of the lower body of a female child of tender years under the circumstances presented here. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the Constitutional violations described herein, minor Plaintiff has endured and will continue to endure grievous mental suffering, including but not limited to post-traumatic stress disorder, and minor Plaintiff has been humiliated by an authority figure in whom she previously reposed confidence. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief: Compensatory damages which will compensate both the adult Plaintiff and the minor Plaintiff for great emotional distress and suffering, humiliation and embarrassment, and for all medical expenses past and future. a. That a jury be empaneled to resolve the issues joined. b. That the Plaintiffs be awarded reasonable attorney s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. c. That the Plaintiffs be awarded the costs of preparing and trying this case. d. That the Plaintiffs be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems fit and proper. Case 1:13-cv-00377-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/12/13 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 7

Respectfully submitted, EPSTEIN LAW FIRM, PLLC By: s/valerie W. Epstein Valerie W. Epstein BPR#013785 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 720 Cherry Street Chattanooga, TN 37402 Telephone: 423-265-5100 Facsimile: 423-490-7308 vepstein@epsteinlawfirm.net Case 1:13-cv-00377-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/12/13 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 8