Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01986/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01986-7/pdf.json

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

---

MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,

SHEPPARD, WAYTE &

CARRUTH LLP

5 RIVER PARK PLACE EAST

FRESNO, CA 93720-1501

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

78046/00057-1590870.v1

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1:08-CV-01986-OWW-DLB

Anthony N. DeMaria, # 177894

McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard,

Wayte & Carruth LLP

P.O. Box 28912

5 River Park Place East

Fresno, CA 93720-1501

Telephone: (559) 433-1300

Facsimile: (559) 433-2300

Attorneys for Defendants

MCSWAIN UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 

DISTRICT; TERRIE ROHRER; C.W. SMITH, and 

MARTHA HERNANDEZ

(SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

T.A., a minor (by and through next friend), 

ANNA AMADOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

MCSWAIN UNION ELEMENTARY 

SCHOOL DISTRICT; TERRIE ROHRER, 

Principal of McSwain Elementary School, 

individually and in her official capacity; 

C.W. SMITH, Assistant Principal of 

McSwain Elementary, individually and in 

his official capacity, and MARTHA 

HERNANDEZ, Office Clerk for McSwain 

Elementary School, Individually and in her 

official capacity,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:08-CV-01986-OWW-DLB

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter came on for hearing on June 22, 2010, on the duly noticed Motion for 

Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff T.A., a minor (by and through next friend), ANNA 

AMADOR (“Plaintiff”). Attorney William J. Becker, Jr. of The Becker Law Firm appeared on 

behalf of Plaintiff and argued in support of the Motion. Attorneys Anthony N. DeMaria and 

Marisa L. Balch of McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP appeared on behalf of 

Defendants MCSWAIN UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT; TERRIE ROHRER; 

C.W. SMITH, and MARTHA HERNANDEZ (“Defendants”)and argued in opposition of the 

Case 1:08-cv-01986-OWW -DLB Document 86 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 3
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,

SHEPPARD, WAYTE &

CARRUTH LLP

5 RIVER PARK PLACE EAST

FRESNO, CA 93720-1501

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1:08-CV-01986-OWW-DLB

Motion. The court has read the papers submitted in support and in opposition of the motion, and 

considered the arguments of counsel and the authorities cited to the court.

The court has concluded that Plaintiff’s requests for summary judgment on her First Claim 

for Relief for Freedom of Speech- First Amendment and her Third Claim for Relief for Equal 

Protection- Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983) are inappropriate, as issues of fact remain 

in connection therewith. The court has further concluded that Plaintiff’s request for summary

judgment on her Fourth Claim for Relief for Due Process- Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 

1983) is inappropriate on the grounds that, given the school context, Defendants’ dress code 

policy does not violate due process. Additionally, the court has concluded that Plaintiff is not 

entitled permanent injunction against Defendants as Plaintiff is no longer a student at MCSWAIN 

UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, and therefore her claims for injunctive relief 

against MCSWAIN UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT are now moot. Finally, the 

court has concluded that Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified 

immunity as failing to provide authority to support her contention and a factual dispute remain in 

connection therewith. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDER THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s request for summary judgment on her First Claim for Relief for 

Freedom of Speech- First Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983) is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s request for summary judgment on her Third Claim for Relief for Equal 

Protection- Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983) is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s request for summary judgment on her Fourth Claim for Relief for Due 

Process- Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983) is DENIED;

4. Plaintiff’s request for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity is 

DENIED; 

5. Plaintiff’s request for summary judgment on her claims for injunctive relief is 

DENIED; and

6. Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are now moot.

Case 1:08-cv-01986-OWW -DLB Document 86 Filed 07/23/10 Page 2 of 3
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,

SHEPPARD, WAYTE &

CARRUTH LLP

5 RIVER PARK PLACE EAST

FRESNO, CA 93720-1501

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1:08-CV-01986-OWW-DLB

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

emm0d64h

Case 1:08-cv-01986-OWW -DLB Document 86 Filed 07/23/10 Page 3 of 3