Jackson v. McCurry
303 F.Supp. 3d 1367 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates a constitutional right that was 'clearly established' at the time of the alleged misconduct. A right is not clearly established unless existing precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court, the controlling U.S. Court of Appeals, or the relevant state's highest court has placed the constitutional question beyond debate.
Facts:
- After rumors circulated that high school student EDJ was bad-mouthing another student, M, M threatened EDJ, who reported the threat to school officials.
- During an investigation, school administrators Josh Kemp and Bo Oates were told by other students that EDJ had been sending harassing text messages about M.
- Kemp and Oates questioned EDJ, who denied the allegations. Oates then took EDJ's phone without her consent and searched her text messages, including messages with family members and friends.
- EDJ's father, Richard D. Jackson, called Superintendent David McCurry to complain, threatened to sue the school, and asked to speak at a school board meeting.
- Jackson later met with his daughter's volleyball coaches, who reported to McCurry that Jackson was aggressive and threatened Oates.
- Based on the coaches' report, McCurry sent Jackson a letter restricting his communications with school officials and limiting his presence on school property, though it explicitly permitted him to attend his daughter's volleyball games.
- McCurry also informed Jackson he could not speak at the school board meeting because he had threatened litigation.
- Later, Jackson attended a volleyball game and was forcibly removed by school resource officer Ryan Smith at the direction of other school officials, who were unaware of the exception in McCurry's letter.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard D. Jackson and his wife, individually and on behalf of their daughter EDJ, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
- The plaintiffs sued Superintendent David McCurry, Assistant Principal Bo Oates, Deputy Sheriff Ryan Smith, Principal Sandi Veliz, and Administrative Assistant Josh Kemp.
- The complaint alleged violations of the First and Fourth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as several state-law tort claims.
- The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, asserting the defense of qualified immunity for the federal claims and official immunity for the state-law claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are school officials entitled to qualified immunity from claims that they violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting a warrantless search of a student's cell phone and seizing a parent on school grounds, and violated the First Amendment by restricting a parent's communications and access to a school board meeting, when the specific rights in those factual contexts had not been clearly established by precedent?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Clay D. Land
Yes. The school officials are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show both a constitutional violation and that the right was clearly established at the time. With regard to the Fourth Amendment search of EDJ's cell phone, the search was governed by the reasonableness standard from New Jersey v. T.L.O., which asks if the search was justified at its inception and reasonable in scope. While the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. California recognized the privacy interests in cell phones, it did not overrule or address T.L.O.'s application in the school context, meaning no precedent clearly established that Oates's search was unconstitutional. Similarly, the officials who removed Mr. Jackson from the volleyball game are entitled to qualified immunity because they had a reasonable, albeit mistaken, belief that he was trespassing, and the force used was de minimis. Regarding the First Amendment claims, no clearly established law dictated the extent to which school officials could restrict a parent's speech after perceived threats, nor was it clearly established that barring a potential litigant from speaking at a limited public forum like a school board meeting was an unconstitutional, viewpoint-based restriction.
Analysis:
This case strongly illustrates the formidable barrier of the qualified immunity doctrine, particularly in novel factual scenarios involving new technology or unique interpersonal conflicts. The court's decision emphasizes that for a right to be 'clearly established,' there must be highly specific, controlling precedent that would put any reasonable official on notice that their conduct is unlawful. This ruling grants school administrators significant discretion in managing student discipline and parent interactions, reinforcing that even if a constitutional violation arguably occurred, officials will be shielded from liability in the absence of a factually similar case that has already settled the issue. The decision signals that courts are hesitant to second-guess the on-the-ground decisions of school officials without clear and pre-existing legal guidance.
