Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cv-00147/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cv-00147-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Other Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

WESTERN DIVISION 

BRITAIN MOORE, Individually, and 

as parent and legal guardian 

of J ashanti Davis, a minor 

v. No. 4:14-cv-147-DPM 

SAUL LUSKS, Superintendent of the Lee 

County School District; WILLIE MURDOCK, 

Assistant Superintendent of the Lee County 

School District; MILTON HALL, Member of the Lee 

County School Board; ELIZABETH JOHNSON, Member 

of the Lee County School Board; LAFAYETTE SM ITH, 

Member of the Lee County School Board; VICTORIA 

PERRY, Member of the Lee County School Board; 

DAVID WALDRIP, Member of the Lee County School 

Board; KENDALL GRAY, Member of the Lee County 

School Board, All in Their Official and Individual 

Capacities; FRANCILE COOPER, Individually and as 

an agent of the Lee County School District; and 

REGINA STONE, Individually and as an agent 

PLAINTIFF 

of the Lee County School District DEFENDANTS 

ORDER 

The Court appreciates Moore's amended complaint. Defendants' motion 

to dismiss, though, is granted. NQ 52. This Court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction. The amended complaint doesn't allege facts supporting an action 

under the Constitution or federal law. 28U.S.C.§1331. Moore doesn't allege 

discrimination, so 42U.S.C.§1985 doesn't apply. Bray v. Alexandria Women's 

Case 4:14-cv-00147-DPM Document 57 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 3
Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 268 (1993). And she doesn't allege facts showing 

a due process or equal protection violation, so 42U.S.C.§1983 doesn't apply. 

The Court accepts as true, at this point, Moore's allegations about the bullying 

and the district's failure to follow its policies for addressing it. The policy 

violation is bad; the bullying is very bad. But these acts and omissions don't 

violate substantive due process. They' re not among the conscience-shocking 

acts targeted by the "heavy artillery" of constitutional litigation. Steuart v. 

Suskie, 867F.2d1148, 1150 (8th Cir. 1989) (Richard S. Arnold, J.); Smith v. Half 

Hollow Hills Central School District, 298F.3d168, 173 (2d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). 

Nor do they violate procedural due process. The district's failure to follow its 

rules does not, by itself, implicate a protected liberty or property interest. 

Batra v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, 79 F.3d 717, 720 (8th Cir. 

1996). 

Defendants' other pending motions, NQ 46, 54 & 55, are denied without 

prejudice as moot. The amended complaint will be dismissed, for want of 

federal question jurisdiction, without prejudice to refiling in state court. 

Carton v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 295 Ark. 126, 128, 747 S.W.2d 93, 94 

(1988). 

-2-

Case 4:14-cv-00147-DPM Document 57 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 3
So Ordered. 

D.P. Marshall JI 

United States District Judge 

-3-

Case 4:14-cv-00147-DPM Document 57 Filed 02/05/16 Page 3 of 3