09- 0866
- cv

Rod riguezv . C linton UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OFAP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 

## SUMMARY ORD ER
R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR DE R DO NOT HAVE PR E CE DE NT I AL E FF E CT . CI T AT I ON TO S UM M ARY O R D E R S F IL E D A F T E R J A N U A R Y 1, 2 0 0 7 , I S P E R M ITT E D A N D I S G O V E R N E D B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1 AN D FEDER A L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1. I N A B R I EF O R O TH ER P A P E R I N WHI CH A LI T I G A N T C I T E S A S U M M A R Y OR D E R , I N E A C H P A R A G R A P H I N WHI C H A C I T A T I ON A P P E A R S , A T L E A S T ON E C I T A T I ON M U S T E I T HE R BE T O T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR BE ACCOM PA N I E D BY T HE NOT AT I ON: “ ( S UM M ARY ORDE R) . ” A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O R D E R M U ST SE R V E A C O P Y O F T H A T SU M M A R Y O R D E R T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E P A P E R IN W HI CH THE S UM M ARY ORDE R I S CI T E D UNL E S S T HE S UM M ARY O R D ER I S AVAI L ABL E I N AN E L E CT RONI C DAT ABAS E W HI CH I S P UBL I CL Y ACC E S S I BL E W I T HO UT PAYM E NT OF F E E ( S UCH A S T HE D A T A B A S E A V A I L A B L E A T h t t p : / / www. c a 2 . u s c o u r t s . g o v / ) . I F N O C OP Y I S S E R V E D B Y R E A S ON OF T HE AV AI L ABI L I T Y OF T HE ORDE R O N SU C H A DAT ABAS E , T HE CI T AT I ON M US T I NCL UDE R E F E R E N C E T O T HA T D A T A B A S E A N D T HE D OC KE T N UM BE R O F T HE C A S E I N WHI C H T HE ORDER W AS E NT E RE D. At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 18 day

of De cembe r, two thousand nine. th PRES ENT: P IE RRE N
. LE V A L,

P E T E R W
. H A LL, GERARD E. LYNCH,

Circuit Judges
.

____________________________________________________________ EDGAR RODRI GUEZ , Plain tif f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. No. 09-0866-c v BA RBARA CL I

NTON, EL IZ AB ETH DAV I ES, NEW PAL TZCENTRALSCHOOLDI STRI CT, De fe nd an ts- Ap pe lle es.

____________________________________________________________ F OR PLAI NT I F F -A PPELLAN T: MI CH AE LH. SUS SMA N, Sus sma

n & Watkin s, Goshen, N.Y
.2

F OR DE F EN DA

NT S- APP ELL EE S: JOHNF . M OO RE, Ryan & Sma lla c omb e , PLL C, Albany , N.Y. Appea l from the United States District Court for the Northe rn District of Ne w York (Scullin, J. ). UPON DUE CONSIDERATI ON, I T I S HEREBY ORDERED, A DJUDGED , AND DECREED that the judgment of the district cour t is AFF I RMED. Plaintiff-Appellant Edg ar Rodrig uez (“Appe llant”) a

ppeals fr om a judg ment in favor of Def endants-A

ppellees B arba

ra Clinton, Eliz abeth Da

vies, and Ne w Paltz C entra l School District (collec tively , “Appe llees”) . Appellant cla ims that the district court err ed in grantingsummary jud gme nt f

or Ap pe lle e s o n App e lla

nt’ s c la ims of

vio la tio ns of theF ir st a

nd F ourt e e nth Am e ndme nts to t

he Un ite d St ate s Co ns tit

uti on . We a ssume the pa rt ie s’ fa mil iari ty wi th t he fa c ts and the r ecord of prior pr ocee dings, which we r efe renc e only as nec essar

y to expl ain our de c isi on . T his Court

re vie ws a

gra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt de novo , draw ing a ll factua l infere nces in fa

vor of the nonmovingparty
. See D avis v. Blige , 505 F.3d 90, 97 ( 2d Cir. 2007),
c e rt. denied, 129 S.Ct . 117 (2008). 1. Rem oval f

romthe Shared-Dec ision Making T eam

“ It is axiomatic that th e F ir st a nd F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nts , a

nd § 1 98 3, a pp ly on ly to state ac tors.” Le e ds v . M

e ltz , 85 F.3d 51, 54 ( 2d Cir. 1996). The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that, “[a]ction t aken by private e ntities with the mer e appr oval or a cquiesc enceof the State is not state action.” Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan , 526 U.S. 40, 52, 119 S.C t. 977, 986 (1999). It is undisput ed that the Ne w Paltz High School Parent Te ache r Student Association (P TSA ) i s a

private e nti ty . App e lla

nt p ro vid e s n o e vid e nc e that th e Ap pe lle e s, wh o a restate3

actor s, did any

thing more than ac quiesce in the PTSA Ex ecutive B oard’ s removal of Appellant from the Shar ed-D ecision MakingTeam. Be cause Appellant has f ailed to provide suf

ficient
e vid e nc e of

“ state a c tio n, ” he ha s n ot c re ate d a g e nu ine iss ue of

mate ri a l f

a c t w ithre sp e c t to his claim that his removal wa s actionable as re taliatory conduct unde r the F irst Amendment or dis c ri min ator

y c on du c t un de r t

he F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt. 2. The CP S Re por t a nd Thr e at e ne d F ili ng o f theP IN S P e ti ti on Appellant cla ims that an interim superintendent a nd assistant superintende nt “direc ted” the Child S tudy

Team (“CST”) to report Appellant to Child Protective Service s (“CPS”). The
rec ord demonstrates that the CST made an inde pendent de termination to file the CPS report on the grounds, inte r a lia , that Appellant’s c hild had not been attending sc hool and would not p arti c ip atein

tuto r in go r

g o to a r e s id e nti a l p la c e me nt, an d th at h is p ar e nts w o u ld

n o t h o s p it a li ze him. Further , the evidenc e showe d that the school district took action (by makinga CPS report and/or filingPI

NS petitions) with respect to other students in the school district who werehaving attendanc e issues or f

ailing to attend school at all and that, at least with respe ct to the PI NS pe tit ion s, thea c tio n w a s ta ke n a ft e r t

ho se stu de nts ha d mi sse d le ss t ime fr om s c ho ol t ha n d id Appellant’s c hild. A rea sonable jury , there fore , could only conclude that Appellee s would have filed the CPS report or a

PI NS petition reg ardle ss of Appellant’s a lleg ed political ac tivity , and the F ir st Ame nd

me nt r e ta liatio n c la im c ann ot t he re fo rebema int a ine d o n th e ba sis that th e CPS Report was f

iled and PI

NS action was thre atene d. See Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Umbe hr , 518 U.S. 668, 685, 116 S.C t. 2342, 2352 (1996) (a First Amendme nt retaliation cla im under sec tion 1983 fails if the de fenda

nts establish as an af

firmative de fense that they would have ta

ken the alleg edly reta liatory

action re g ardle ss of the protec ted spee ch).4

With respe ct to Appellant’s e qual protec tion claim under the F ourtee nth Amendment, he must present evide nce: “ (1) that [he wa s] treated diffe rently from other

simil arly situated individuals, and (2) that such dif fer ential treatment was base d on impermissible considerations such as r ace , relig ion, intent to inhi bit or punish the exercise of c onstitut ional rights, or malicious or bad f aith intent to injure a per son.” Ha rle n A sso cs. v . I nc . V ill. o f M ine ola , 273 F.3d 494, 499 (2d Cir. 2001) (inter

nal quotation marks omitted). In the alter native, he c ould pursue an “ equal protec tion claim under a

theory of discriminatory

application of the law, or unde r a the ory of discriminatory

motivation underlying a

fac ially neutra l policy

or statute.” Pyk

e v. Cuomo , 258 F .3 d 1 07 , 1 08 -0 9 ( 2d

Cir . 2 00 1) . App e lla

nt, ho we ve r, ha s f

a ile d to pr e se nt s uf

fi c ie nt e vid e nc e to
a llo w a re a so na blejur y to f ind that any of the Ap pe lle e s inte nti on a lly dis c ri min ate d a g a ins t hi m
or that hewa s tr e ate d d if

fe re ntl y tha n s imi larl y -s itu ate d Ca

uc a sia ns . 3. Conclusion For the fore g oing r easons, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Norther n District of Ne w York is AF FIRMED.

FOR THECOURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk
By :________________________