Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01986/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01986-6/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

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION 

FOR PARTIAL 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 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR PARTIAL 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

Summary Judgment, Or in the Alternative, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by 

Defendants MCSWAIN UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT; TERRIE ROHRER; 

C.W. SMITH, and MARTHA HERNANDEZ (“Defendants”). Attorneys Anthony N. DeMaria 

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

behalf of Defendants and argued in support of the Motion. Attorney William J. Becker, Jr. of The 

Becker Law Firm appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and argued in opposition to the Motion. 

Case 1:08-cv-01986-OWW -DLB Document 85 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 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION 

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1:08-CV-01986-OWW-DLB

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 Defendants’ request for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s 

Fourth Claim for Relief for Due Process- Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983) is 

appropriate, and should be granted, on the grounds that, given the school context, Defendants’ 

dress code policy does not violate substantive due process. Additionally, the court has concluded 

that Defendants’ request for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Second Claim for Relief for 

Unreasonable Seizure-Fourth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983), as to the unreasonable seizure of 

Plaintiff’s property (the t-shirt), is appropriate and should be granted as to all Defendants. The 

Court has further concluded that Defendants’ request for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s 

Second Claim for Relief for Unreasonable Seizure – Fourth Amendment (42 U.S.C. §1983) as to 

the alleged seizure of Plaintiff’s person is appropriate and should be granted, as to all Defendants 

except Defendant MARTHA HERNANDEZ, on the grounds that an issue of fact remains with 

regard to only Defendant MARTHA HERNANDEZ’s alleged grabbing of Plaintiff. All other 

requests for summary judgment are denied at this time on the grounds that material issues of fact 

remain in connection with Plaintiff’s First Claim for Relief for Freedom of Speech- First 

Amendment and Plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief for Equal Protection- Fourteenth Amendment 

(42 U.S.C. § 1983). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDER THAT:

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

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

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

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

3. Defendants’ request for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Second Claim for Relief 

for Unreasonable Seizure-Fourth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983), as to the 

unreasonable seizure of Plaintiff’s property (the t-shirt), is GRANTED as to all 

Defendants; and Defendants’ request for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Second 

Case 1:08-cv-01986-OWW -DLB Document 85 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 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION 

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1:08-CV-01986-OWW-DLB

Claim for Relief for Unreasonable Seizure – Fourth Amendment (42 U.S.C. 

§1983), as to the alleged seizure of Plaintiff’s person, is GRANTED as to all 

Defendants except Defendant MARTHA HERNANDEZ; and

4. Defendants’ request for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Fourth Claim for Relief 

for Due Process- Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983) is GRANTED.

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 85 Filed 07/23/10 Page 3 of 3