Brownfield v. Independent School District No. 35, No. 21-cv-312 (E.D. Okla. Apr. 7, 2025) (J. Heil)
Plaintiff Oscar Brownfield sued Independent School District No. 35 of Cherokee County (Tahlequah Public Schools), Leon Ashlock, Mat Cloud, DeAnn Mashburn, Natalie Cloud, and Kimberly Williams in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma raising claims of Title IX retaliation, Section 1983 violations for First Amendment and Equal Protection rights violations, due process violations, Title VII violations, and civil conspiracy. Several defendants moved to dismiss portions of plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Brownfield had worked as a substitute teacher and volunteer wrestling coach with Tahlequah Public Schools. He alleged that all defendants retaliated against him in various ways after he made Title IX complaints regarding the behavior of another coach. Specifically, Brownfield claimed that defendants refused to employ him further as a substitute teacher and volunteer wrestling coach and “blacklisted” him from coaching positions at TPS and elsewhere.
The case was originally filed in state court in October 2021 and removed to federal court. Brownfield has proceeded pro se since June 2022. His Second Amended Complaint was filed in October 2022, containing seven claims for relief. However, defendants only sought partial dismissal of certain claims rather than dismissal of the entire complaint.
The defendants challenged Brownfield’s Section 1983 Equal Protection claims in his Second Claim, his due process claim against TPS in his Fourth Claim, and his civil conspiracy claim in his Third Claim. Magistrate Judge Jackson issued a Report and Recommendation in January 2023, recommending that defendants’ motions to dismiss be granted and that Brownfield not be given leave to further amend his complaint. Brownfield filed objections to the Report and Recommendation in February 2023.
Legal Analysis
Section 1983 Equal Protection Claims
The court found that Brownfield’s Equal Protection claims failed for multiple reasons. First, Brownfield attempted to assert a “class-of-one” Equal Protection theory, which the Supreme Court in Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture explicitly held does not apply in the public employment context. The court determined that Brownfield’s claims clearly related to his employment with TPS as a substitute teacher and volunteer coach, making the class-of-one theory legally unviable.
Even if Brownfield’s claims were construed as relating solely to his status as a Title IX complainant rather than employment, the court found he failed to plausibly allege differential treatment compared to other Title IX complainants. The complaint contained only conclusory allegations without sufficient factual support to state a plausible claim for relief.
Additionally, the court concluded that retaliation claims simply do not implicate the Equal Protection Clause. Following Tenth Circuit precedent, the court explained that when an individual suffers reprisal for making complaints, the injury results from their conduct rather than from membership in a protected class. The proper avenue for addressing retaliation is through First Amendment claims or specific anti-retaliation statutes, not Equal Protection.
Finally, the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Brownfield failed to state a viable constitutional claim, and no clearly established right was violated.
Civil Conspiracy Claims
The court found that Brownfield failed to state a plausible claim for civil conspiracy under Section 1983. While the elements of such a claim include deprivation of a constitutional right, combination of two or more persons, and a meeting of minds or agreement, Brownfield’s allegations were insufficient to establish the latter two elements.
Critically, Brownfield failed to plausibly allege that defendant Mashburn, the TPS Title IX coordinator, participated in any conspiracy beyond merely forwarding emails and memoranda to TPS’s attorney and superintendent. The court found these actions insufficient to support an inference of conspiratorial agreement. Since Mashburn was the only state actor allegedly involved in the conspiracy, her absence from any plausible conspiracy was fatal to the claim, as both public and private actors must share a common unconstitutional goal for Section 1983 liability.
Motion to Amend
The court denied Brownfield’s request for leave to amend his complaint. Brownfield failed to comply with local rules requiring a separate motion to amend with a proposed amended pleading attached. Instead, he made only a “fleeting request” within another pleading without identifying specific proposed amendments.
The court also found that amendment would be futile and prejudicial given the substantial delay in seeking amendment, Brownfield’s two prior opportunities to amend, the expiration of the scheduling order deadline for amendments, and the fact that he could have raised these claims earlier but only sought to amend when facing dismissal.
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, overruled Brownfield’s objections, and dismissed with prejudice his Third Claim (civil conspiracy), Fourth Claim (due process), and the Equal Protection portions of his Second Claim against TPS, Ashlock, Mashburn, and Mat Cloud.
Schrag on Law 