Plaintiff F.B., a minor, by and through his next friend Tracy Bono, sued defendant Francis Howell School District in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, raising claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendant Francis Howell School District moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
F.B., a minor with autism, attended an elementary school in the Francis Howell School District until March 2017. He alleged that the district’s staff physically restrained and secluded him in an isolation room, despite such practices being forbidden by his Individualized Education Plan (IEP). After complaining to his mother, Tracy Bono, about the isolation room, F.B. was removed from the school and later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, allegedly arising from the restraint and seclusion at school. F.B. filed a complaint in May 2022, seeking compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees.
The district court initially dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that F.B. failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Eighth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the case following a Supreme Court decision holding that the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement does not apply to suits seeking remedies unavailable under the IDEA.
Legal Analysis
Statute of Limitations: The court found that Missouri’s minority tolling statute applied to F.B.’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, rejecting the district’s argument that applying the tolling statute would undermine the goals of these federal statutes. As F.B. is a minor, the statute of limitations on his claims was tolled, and the court denied the district’s motion to dismiss on this basis.
Fourth Amendment Violation: The court determined that F.B. had sufficiently alleged a Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claim, distinguishing the case from a prior Eighth Circuit decision. The court found that F.B.’s allegations of restraint and seclusion being used as a punitive measure and in response to minor behaviors could plausibly constitute a substantial departure from the practices authorized by his IEP.
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Violation: The court agreed with the district that F.B. failed to clearly allege a violation of either the substantive or procedural components of the due process clause. F.B. did not identify a fundamental liberty interest or allege conscience-shocking conduct, as required for a substantive due process claim. Similarly, he did not specify the liberty interest violated or the process he was constitutionally entitled to, as necessary for a procedural due process claim.
Equal Protection Violation: The court found that F.B. did not sufficiently allege an equal protection violation, as he failed to provide facts demonstrating that he was treated differently than similarly situated individuals without disabilities who engaged in similar conduct.
The court granted the district’s motion to dismiss F.B.’s due process and equal protection claims but denied the motion as to the Fourth Amendment claim. F.B.’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims remain pending, as well as his Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983.
Schrag on Law 