RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)

File Name: 20a0283p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JENNIFER GARZA, individually and as guardian ad 

litem for C.G. on behalf of C.G.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT; CONNIE NICKSON;

TRACEY KEATON; MARTIN ALWARDT; YVONNE 

CAAMAL CANUL; SHERYL BACON; EDNA ROBINSON,

Defendants-Appellees.

┐

│

│

│

│

│

│

│

│

│

│

┘

No. 19-1645

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.

No. 1:15-cv-01128—Gordon J. Quist, District Judge.

Argued: March 13, 2020

Decided and Filed: August 28, 2020

Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Todd Boley, LAW OFFICE OF TODD BOLEY, Alameda, California, for 

Appellant. Scott L. Mandel, FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, PC, Lansing, Michigan, for 

Appellees. ON BRIEF: Beth M. Rivers, Megan A. Bonanni, Channing E. Robinson-Holmes, 

PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, P.C., Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellant. Scott L. 

Mandel, Pamela C. Dausman, FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, PC, Lansing, Michigan, 

for Appellees.

CLAY, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which GIBBONS, J., joined, and 

BOGGS, J., joined in part. BOGGS, J. (pp. 34–35), delivered a separate opinion concurring in 

part and dissenting in part.

>
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 2

_________________

OPINION

_________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Jennifer Garza, acting individually and on behalf of her 

child, C.G., appeals the district court’s judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against 

Defendants Lansing School District (the “District”) and its current or former employees Sheryl 

Bacon, Edna Robinson, Martin Alwardt, Yvonne Caamal Canul, and Connie Nickson. This case 

arises out of former teacher Lester Duvall’s physical abuse of C.G. Plaintiff alleges that the 

individual Defendants bear supervisory liability for Duvall’s abuse because they were 

deliberately indifferent to the possibility that Duvall, who had a long history of abusing students, 

would also abuse C.G. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Bacon 

and Robinson, granted summary judgment to Defendants Alwardt, Caamal Canul, and Nickson, 

and denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to add an additional claim against the 

District. Plaintiff appeals each of these decisions.

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of 

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Bacon and Robinson and its grant of summary judgment to 

Defendants Alwardt, Caamal Canul, and Nickson, AFFIRM its denial of Plaintiff’s motion to 

amend her pleadings, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

In fall 2014, C.G. was a student at Gardner Leadership, Law, and Government Academy 

(“Gardner”), a school within the Lansing School District. C.G. has autism spectrum disorder and 

attention deficit disorder, and thus participated in the school’s special education program, in 

which Lester Duvall taught. On October 7, 2014, Duvall allegedly abused C.G. by throwing him 

into furniture and kicking him in response to minor misbehavior. Because Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendants could have anticipated this incident based on Duvall’s prior abuse of students, we 

begin with an overview of Duvall’s history.
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 3

A. Duvall’s History of Misconduct

Throughout Lester Duvall’s time teaching in the District, District employees and 

community members repeatedly reported that Duvall had physically abused students. Employees 

were trained to report serious teacher misconduct to the District Human Resources Department 

(“HR”) or to their immediate supervisor, who would in turn report it to HR. When employees 

suspected child abuse, they were also required to file a report with Child Protective Services 

(“CPS”) and notify the student’s parents. Upon receiving a report, HR’s responsibility was to 

investigate and determine what response was appropriate.

Duvall’s first incidents of abuse reflected in the record took place in November 2003, 

when he was working at the Beekman Center (“Beekman”), a District school for students with 

special needs. Defendant Sheryl Bacon was principal of Beekman at that time. That month, an 

intern reported to her that Duvall had “slammed” a student into a table. (Pl. Ex. 1, R. 112-2 at 

PageID #2546.) A few days later, an aide in Duvall’s classroom reported that Duvall had 

“[y]anked” a child from a chair by the arm, “slammed” another child into a table, and forcefully 

grabbed and squeezed another’s face. (Id. at #2541.) The aide expressed concern that Duvall 

would eventually seriously hurt a student. The record does not reflect if or how Bacon 

responded to these reports.

In April 2005, multiple teachers reported seeing Duvall slap a student across the face. 

This incident was also reported to Bacon, who told a teacher that the child’s parents would be 

informed and an incident report created. The record also does not reflect if or how Bacon 

actually responded to this incident.

In March 2007, an aide reported that Duvall pushed a student to the floor, grabbed him by 

the mouth and yelled at him in order to force him to spit out a piece of candy. The child 

screamed and cried, and he was left with bloody scratches on his face. Again, the record does 

not reflect if or how Bacon responded to this incident.

In mid-2011, Bacon retired, and Defendant Edna Robinson became principal of 

Beekman. Bacon told Robinson prior to her start that Duvall was “a very good teacher,” about 

whom she had received no complaints. (Robinson Dep., R. 112-32 at PageID #3248.) She also 
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 4

said that she shredded her notes on anyone in the building prior to her departure.1 Upon 

Robinson’s arrival, the school’s union representative presented her with a full envelope of 

statements regarding Duvall’s mistreatment of students and women in the building. When 

deposed, Robinson explained that she spoke with staff about the allegations, and some 

corroborated them, while others did not. She said that she did not have enough evidence to be 

sure the incidents had occurred, but sent the statements to HR anyway.2 The record does not 

reflect whether Robinson notified CPS or any students’ parents about these incidents or whether 

HR undertook any additional investigation.

In April 2012, another Beekman special education teacher, Rezan Ellenwood, wrote to 

Robinson reporting multiple instances of abuse by Duvall and alleging that he had harassed her. 

Ellenwood stated that Duvall generally physically intimidated students and was excessively 

physically rough with them. More specifically, Ellenwood reported seeing Duvall “place his 

thumb under [a student’s] jaw line and apply pressure to get her to stop [making] noises.” 

(Pl. Ex. 2., R. 112-3 at PageID #2565.) She also saw Duvall “grab” a student by the shirt, “push 

him into the wall” and get up “nose to nose” with him. (Id.) Ellenwood explained that she had 

previously reported Duvall’s physical aggression toward students to Defendant Bacon, who had 

not addressed her report.

After speaking with both Ellenwood and Duvall, Robinson referred the complaint to HR 

and requested an investigation by the District’s Director of Public Safety, John Parks. Parks later 

noted that Robinson said this was the first complaint she had heard about Duvall. The record 

does not reflect whether Robinson also reported these allegations to CPS or any student parents. 

Robinson also contacted her supervisor, Defendant Martin Alwardt, the District’s Director of 

Special Education, and told him that an investigation was pending.3 Defendant Yvonne Caamal 

1Because Bacon shredded her notes, the record does not reflect any additional incidents of abuse that might 

have been documented in them.

2

It is not clear if these statements are included in the record. Plaintiff submitted a Freedom of Information 

Act (“FOIA”) request for all documented allegations of abuse by Duvall, but the only earlier reports apparently 

secured were the November 2003, April 2005, and March 2007 complaints previously discussed. These may be the 

same statements provided to Robinson in this envelope, or there may be other statements not reflected in the record.

3When deposed, Alwardt said that he first saw Ellenwood’s reports about Duvall years later, in a meeting 

with Ellenwood and other District administrators. It is not clear what information Robinson reported to Alwardt at 
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 5

Canul, who was the District Superintendent beginning in 2012, likewise received a copy of 

Ellenwood’s statement and passed it on to Alwardt for follow-up.

Parks investigated Ellenwood’s allegations that Duvall had harassed her. Regarding her 

student abuse allegations, Parks later explained that he asked Duvall if he was abusing students 

and that Duvall said no, but that he did not look any further into the incidents Ellenwood alleged 

because he had no other evidence of them. Although Robinson claims to have sent the 

previously mentioned envelope of reports against Duvall to HR, Parks said that his office had 

never received any other reports about Duvall from any source. Parks’ investigative report 

acknowledged Ellenwood’s abuse allegations and that, when interviewed, she said that she had 

“constantly” reported incidents of abuse to Defendant Bacon, who “refused to do anything about 

[them].” (Id. at #2557.) The report did not include any other information on the reported abuse. 

Parks gave the report to HR, and later explained that Alwardt was then responsible for reviewing 

and evaluating the report and recommending follow-up as appropriate.4 HR informed Robinson 

of the results of the investigation and that HR would respond to it. No other action was taken.

In October 2012, Ellenwood wrote to Parks, copying Alwardt. She expressed concern 

that her abuse allegations had not been investigated and requested that the investigation be 

reopened so that “[her] main, and most significant point (that Mr. Duvall physically mishandled 

students at the Beekman Center)” could be addressed. (Pl. Ex. 3, R. 112-4 at PageID #2597.) 

The record does not reflect any response to this follow-up complaint.

Later in October 2012, another Beekman aide, Emily Dove, requested to be removed 

from Duvall’s classroom after working there for only four days because she was so disturbed by 

the abuse she had witnessed in that time. She detailed three incidents. First, when a student 

spilled juice, Duvall angrily threw the juice carton at the student. The next day, Duvall 

“grabbed” a student by the arm, “YANKED him up,” and “yell[ed] at his face to stop making 

this point, but viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and making reasonable inferences in 

Plaintiff’s favor—as we must at this juncture—we assume that he heard about Ellenwood’s allegations of physical 

abuse because Robinson says that she told him about the complaint.

4Alwardt asserts that he never received a copy of any investigative report completed by Parks. Again, 

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and making reasonable inferences in her favor, we infer 

that he did receive a copy of these reports as alleged and as Parks’ deposition suggests.
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 6

noise.” (Pl. Ex. 4, R. 112-5 at PageID #2637.) The student tried to sit down, but Duvall “yanked 

again at his arm” and when the student made more noise, Duvall “push[ed] the student and 

yell[ed] at him to stop.” (Id.) Two days later, on October 4, 2012, a student got up from her 

chair after being told not to, whereupon Duvall started “yelling very rough,” and “pushing, 

shoving, yanking to get the student back to her seat.” (Id.) “[W]hen he got her in her seat[,] he 

placed his left hand on her [forehead] and pushed back and placed his right hand at her neck” and 

“push[ed] so hard that you could see the muscles in his arm tighten” for about fifteen seconds, 

“[t]he entire time while yelling at her to stay sitting and not to get up.” (Id.) The student did not 

resist or fight back and “appeared to be in physical distress, because her eyes were bulging out of 

her face.” (Id. at #2604.) This student was nonverbal.

Robinson submitted a report on Dove’s statements to Parks, requesting another formal 

investigation, and further reported the incident to CPS. She also informed HR and Alwardt, who 

also referred the incident to Parks and HR. She then spoke with Duvall, who said that Dove had 

lied, but admitted using a pressure hold on a student. Robinson told him not to use force with 

students and reminded him that they had already spoken about his “inappropriate hands on 

techniques with students.” (Id. at #2613.) Duvall responded that other Beekman administrators 

had allowed him to “handle students with behaviors” and that “he was not going to stop what he 

was doing.” (Id.) Robinson later relayed a summary of this conversation to Parks and Alwardt.

Duvall was placed on paid administrative leave while the October 4, 2012 incident was 

investigated. This time, Parks’ investigative report concluded that Duvall’s actions were 

“punitive and in violation of [District policy on] discipline and use of physical force upon 

students.”5 (Id. at #2609.) 

5That district policy established:

A. Physical restraint is appropriate only when a student is displaying physical behavior that 

presents substantial imminent risk of injury to the student or others.

1. The student is demonstrating the intent and the ability to cause injury within a 

matter of minutes.

B. Physical restraint should only be employed as a last resort after other methods of deescalating a dangerous situation have been attempted without success.

C. Physical restraint should only be employed by staff members who have received specific 

district approved crisis intervention training in the use of physical restraint procedures.
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 7

Parks’ report also indicated that he had uncovered additional allegations against Duvall, 

which should be addressed “due to liability concerns.” (Id.) To start, staff reported that Duvall 

had “a habit of refusing students’ request to use the bathroom,” leading in at least one instance to 

a student having a bowel movement in his clothes. (Id. at ##2651–52.) Parks next uncovered an 

email to Robinson from October 8, 2012, in which an employee of the Community Mental 

Health Authority (“CMH”) reported the following incidents. First, in a 2010 meeting, Duvall 

told CMH that if a student became “too loud” while in the pool, “he dunks her head under water 

([because] she hates the water).” (Id. at #2654.) In March 2011, a student returned from school 

with bruises and scratches, which she said were inflicted by Duvall. In April 2011, another 

student said that a “Ms. Reno” had touched her breasts and private areas, later identifying “Ms. 

Reno” as Duvall. (Id.) In May 2011, another student came home with an abrasion on their 

cheek, saying Duvall did it. Parks also attached a follow-up letter from October 10, 2012, in 

which CMH requested that a student not be placed in Duvall’s classroom based on his repeated 

use of “physical force, control tactics and verbal threats” and indicated that numerous instances 

of Duvall’s suspected abuse had been brought to the attention of protective services, Bacon and 

Robinson, and the Lansing Police Department. Parks did not receive authorization to investigate 

these allegations.

Upon receiving CMH’s complaints, Robinson met with Duvall and passed them along to 

Defendant Alwardt. On October 12, 2012, an employee from Mid-Michigan Guardianship 

Services wrote to Robinson, copying Alwardt and Caamal Canul, to express support for CMH’s 

concerns. The employee requested that a student not be placed in Duvall’s classroom, a request 

1. Other school personnel may employ physical restraint procedures only in rare and 

clearly unavoidable emergency circumstances when fully trained school personnel 

are not immediately available. Untrained staff should request assistance from trained 

staff as soon as possible.

2. A physical restraint of a student should be conducted in a manner consistent with the 

techniques prescribed in the District approved crisis intervention training 

program. . . .

H. For students with disabilities, the use of physical restraint should not be included in a 

student’s IEP, or Behavior Intervention Plan. . . .

E. Restraint should never be used as a punishment, or to force compliance with staff 

commands.

(Pl. Ex. 5, R. 112-6 at PageID ##2661–62.) Duvall had not received training on how to use restraints. There were 

six exceptions to this policy, none of which applied in this incident.
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 8

Alwardt later confirmed that multiple parents and court-appointed guardians had also made. On 

October 16, 2012, Alwardt received another letter from CMH requesting additional investigation 

into Duvall’s conduct. CMH noted that the non-verbal student who Duvall had choked had 

previously been removed from his classroom based on allegations of abuse that had been 

reported to protective services, the police, and Bacon. CMH further noted that it had not 

received word about the October 4 incident, nor had the incident been reported to protective 

services or the student’s guardian, as required by law. In the same letter, CMH reported that a 

student had recently returned from Beekman with bruises on his neck, that Beekman had not 

responded to his guardian’s request for information about the bruises, and that Robinson had not 

reported the bruises to CPS.

When deposed, Alwardt explained that he referred CMH’s complaints to HR. He said 

that he met with CMH representatives and looked for documentation on the allegations, but did 

not find any. The record does not reflect whether any additional investigation took place.

Following the October incidents, Alwardt said in his deposition, he recommended that 

Duvall be suspended and required to take anger management training. Initially, Duvall was 

suspended for three days without pay. The District later reduced this suspension from three days 

to one day, with an agreement that if Duvall was not disciplined for similar conduct before the 

end of the 2013–2014 school year, it would be further reduced to “a formal counseling 

statement.” (Pl. Ex. 7, R. 112-8 at PageID #2672.) When deposed, Duvall said that the 

suspension had ultimately been reduced to a letter of reprimand. Alwardt said in his deposition 

that he also told Duvall that this conduct would not be tolerated, reminded him of the District’s 

restraint policies, and ordered him to take additional Crisis Prevention Intervention training. 

Duvall himself said that Alwardt never discussed any complaints with him prior to the incident 

with C.G., but instead actually chastised him twice while he was at Gardner for failing to use 

physical restraints.

At some point during her tenure at Beekman, Robinson spoke with Alwardt about a 

separate report from a parent whose child had bruising apparently inflicted by Duvall. Upon 

receiving the parent’s complaint, Robinson conducted her own building-level investigation, and 

met with Duvall, the parent, and the student. Robinson’s investigation was “inconclusive,” and 
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 9

she did not send her internal report about this incident to anyone. (Robinson Dep., R. 112-32 at 

PageID #3246.) She, like Bacon, shredded her notes upon her later retirement.

Following the “firestorm” of complaints CMH made about Duvall, Alwardt transferred 

Duvall from Beekman to Gardner beginning in the 2013–2014 school year. (Alwardt Dep., R. 

112-24 at PageID ##2896–98.) Before Duvall started at Gardner, Alwardt reached out to 

Defendant Connie Nickson, who was the principal at Gardner. Alwardt says he told Nickson 

that Duvall had been accused of physical abuse, but that the District “had no documentation, no 

witnesses, no statements, nothing in the HR file” to support these allegations, and that 

“[e]verybody else says he’s a good teacher.” (Id. at #2890.) Nickson did not ask for details 

about those incidents.

Duvall’s abuse continued at Gardner. In February 2014, Duvall’s assistant reported that 

when a student became unruly, Duvall grabbed her by the arms and threw her ten feet across the 

room into the corner of a bookcase, leaving her with large bruises on her arms. (Pl. Ex. 12, R. 

112-13 at PageID #2719.) The assistant stated that Duvall had thrown this student several times 

previously, was violent with other students, “brag[ged] about the mishandling” of a student, and 

generally “ha[d] an anger issue.” (Id.) A student witness also stated that Duvall had thrown the 

student to the floor “[a] lot of times,” and that Duvall had also thrown him to the floor before. 

(Id.) Nickson informed HR about this incident. A District employee investigated and concluded 

that although two witnesses agreed that Duvall had thrown the student, and although there were 

indeed bruises on the student’s arms, because it was “not known whether [the student] clearly 

understands the difference between being legitimately restrained and ‘thrown,”’ the investigation 

was “inconclusive.” (Id. at ##2722–23.) When deposed, Alwardt stated that in response to this 

incident, he recommended that HR monitor Duvall closely, but he could not confirm whether it 

did. Nickson did not take further action, later explaining that because “HR cleared him to 

continue to work, I assumed that he was okay to work.” (Nickson Dep., R. 112-30 at PageID 

#3179.)

In May 2014, a student was pulled from Duvall’s classroom because her mother 

perceived it to be an unsafe environment. That same month, Nickson evaluated Duvall’s 
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 10

performance for the year. She gave him a perfect score in classroom management and 

recommended that his employment be continued.

In August 2014, Ellenwood again renewed her complaints about Duvall’s conduct to 

District administrators. In a meeting with Defendant Alwardt and other District executives, she 

provided them with a timeline of the incidents she witnessed, her reports, and the actions—or 

lack thereof—taken by the District.

B. Duvall’s Abuse of C.G.

This brings us, finally, to Duvall’s abuse of C.G. On October 7, 2014, while in class with 

Duvall, C.G. asked to sharpen his pencil. Duvall said no, but C.G. proceeded to sharpen his 

pencil anyway. C.G. explained afterwards that Duvall then “grabbed my arm and threw me 

down on the floor.” (C.G. Dep., R. 112-26 at PageID #3023.) Duvall next “threw [C.G.] across 

the room.” (Id.) C.G. hit a bookshelf, the bottom part of which broke upon impact. His head hit 

a trash can, which dented. At some point during this encounter, C.G. kicked at Duvall, crying 

out “Leave me alone,” and “Get away from me.” (Pl. Ex. 17, R. 112-18 at PageID #2793; C.G. 

Dep., R. 112-26 at PageID ##3023–24.)6 C.G. suggests that Duvall kicked him back. Duvall 

later stated that he “‘pushed’ [C.G.] to the floor” to prevent him from “run[ning] around the 

classroom and using a pencil in a threatening manner.” (Pl. Ex. 17, R. 112-18 at PageID #2796.)

Following the incident, administrators asked Duvall to leave the building, contacted 

C.G.’s parents and HR, and placed Duvall on administrative leave. Upon investigation, District 

employees concluded that Duvall had thrown C.G. into a bookcase, leaving him with “extreme 

bruising” in multiple places. (Id. at #2804.) The investigation found no evidence to suggest 

C.G. required a physical intervention and that, even if he had, Duvall’s conduct did not reflect a 

permissible intervention under any circumstances. The District reported the incident to the 

Lansing Police Department, which did its own investigation and charged Duvall with fourth 

6Defendants’ account of the incident, drawn from what C.G. allegedly told the school social worker, 

suggests that Duvall only threw C.G. to the ground once and does not mention him hitting either the bookcase or the 

trash can. Once again, we view the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, which is corroborated by witness 

accounts.
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 11

degree child abuse. Duvall did not return to teaching and later resigned pursuant to an agreement 

with the District.

On November 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed her complaint with the district court. Plaintiff 

asserted, among other things, that Defendants Bacon, Robinson, Alwardt, Caamal Canul, and 

Nickson bore supervisory liability for Duvall’s violation of C.G.’s right to bodily integrity under 

the Due Process Clause. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Bacon and 

Robinson in June 2016. In June 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the pleadings to add a 

claim against the District pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New 

York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). The district court denied this motion and subsequently granted 

summary judgment to Alwardt, Caamal Canul, and Nickson.

This timely appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

I. Supervisory Liability Claims

On appeal, the parties do not dispute that Duvall’s conduct violated C.G.’s rights under 

the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, they disagree as to whether the 

individual Defendants can be held liable for that violation as supervisors. 

In order to succeed on a supervisory liability claim, Plaintiff must show that “a 

supervisory official at least implicitly authorized, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the 

unconstitutional conduct of the offending subordinate.” Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 

(6th Cir. 1984); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (holding liable any state actor who “subjects, or 

causes [a person] to be subjected” to a constitutional violation). While a supervisor must have 

engaged in “some ‘active unconstitutional behavior,’” that behavior need not be “‘active’ in the 

sense that the supervisor must have physically put his hands on the injured party or even 

physically been present at the time of the constitutional violation.” Peatross v. City of Memphis, 

818 F.3d 233, 242–43 (6th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted) (quoting Bass v. Robinson, 167 F.3d 

1041, 1048 (6th Cir. 1999)).
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 12

A defendant may “knowingly acquiesce[] in the unconstitutional conduct of his 

subordinates through the execution of his job functions,” id. at 242, including by failing to take 

precautions against likely violations. Thus, in assessing whether the director of a police 

department was liable for his officers’ use of excessive force, we denied qualified immunity 

based on allegations that he “failed to train and supervise the officers to avoid the use of 

excessive force, failed to investigate the allegations of excessive force properly, and attempted to 

cover-up the unconstitutional conduct of his subordinates by exonerating the officers in an effort 

to escape liability.” Id. at 243; see also id. (noting also that the defendant had previously 

acknowledged a need to review and improve the disciplinary process, but had not undertaken 

review or improvements). Similarly, in discussing a Title IX claim in the school context,7this 

Court has explained:

[W]here a school district has knowledge that its remedial action is inadequate and 

ineffective, it is required to take reasonable action in light of those circumstances 

to eliminate the behavior. Where a school district has actual knowledge that its 

efforts to remediate are ineffective, and it continues to use those same methods to 

no avail, such district has failed to act reasonably in light of the known 

circumstances.

Vance v. Spencer Cnty. Pub. Sch. Dist., 231 F.3d 253, 261 (6th Cir. 2000). This same reasoning 

applies here—where a defendant has knowledge that the methods she has used to address 

instances of abuse are ineffective, she does not take adequate precautions by simply continuing 

to use those methods.

However, a defendant may not be found to bear supervisory liability based on mere 

negligence: 

[I]t is not enough for the plaintiff to show that the defendant supervisors were 

sloppy, reckless or negligent in the performance of their duties. Rather . . . “[a] 

plaintiff must show that, in light of the information the defendants possessed, the 

teacher who engaged in . . . abuse showed a strong likelihood that he would 

attempt to . . . abuse other students, such that the failure to take adequate 

precautions amounted to deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of 

students.”

7The Supreme Court has explained that the standards for deliberate indifference under Title IX and § 1983 

are comparable. Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290–91 (1998); accord Klemencic v. Ohio 

State Univ., 263 F.3d 504, 510 (6th Cir. 2001).
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 13

Doe ex rel. Doe v. City of Roseville, 296 F.3d 431, 439 (6th Cir. 2002) (third alteration in 

original) (quoting Doe v. Claiborne County, 103 F.3d 495, 513 (6th Cir. 1996)). “The likelihood 

of future harm may depend upon a showing that [a] supervisor ‘was confronted with a 

widespread pattern of constitutional violations,’ not merely isolated or ‘sporadic’ incidents.” 

Howard v. Knox County, 695 F. App’x 107, 113–14 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting Doe v. Warren 

Consolidated Sch., 93 F. App’x 812, 821–22 (6th Cir. 2004)).

With this foundation laid, we turn to assess Plaintiff’s supervisory liability claims, 

beginning with the claims against Defendants Bacon and Robinson.

A. Dismissal of Claims Against Defendants Bacon and Robinson

Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that Bacon and Robinson are liable for Duvall’s 

violation of C.G.’s rights because, as principals of the Beekman Center while Duvall taught 

there, they received and inadequately responded to multiple complaints that Duvall was 

physically abusing students. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims, finding that “[a]ny 

action or inaction by Bacon and Robinson occurred years before the events at issue in this case, 

and neither of those defendants had any supervisory authority over Duvall at the time that he 

allegedly abused C.G.” (Op., R. 34 at PageID #491.) On appeal, Plaintiff argues that these are 

not valid bases for dismissal. 

Taking into account the circumstances involved in this case, we conclude that a lapse of 

time between a defendant’s deliberately indifferent conduct and a plaintiff’s injury does not 

necessarily preclude that defendant’s supervisory liability—at least where the defendant had 

ample notice of the supervisee’s likelihood of continuing violations, and the passage of time was 

not so great as to erase the connection between the supervisor’s conduct and the student’s 

subsequent abuse. We note that Plaintiff’s claims do not present a statute of limitations issue, as 

she pursued them promptly after C.G.’s injury. In the instant case, the success of these claims 

instead turns on whether Plaintiff can show that Defendants actually and proximately caused 

C.G.’s injury, despite the time lapse between their alleged misconduct and Duvall’s abuse of 

C.G. For the reasons that follow, given the specific facts of this case and for the purposes of a 

motion to dismiss, Plaintiff has sufficiently shown that Defendants’ alleged failure to carry out 
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 14

their duties to report and investigate student abuse caused C.G.’s subsequent abuse. 

Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Bacon and 

Robinson.

We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712, 716 

(6th Cir. 2005). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 

A claim is facially plausible only when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court 

to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” thus 

raising “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. In reviewing 

the disposition of a motion to dismiss, this Court construes the complaint in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff, accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and draws all 

reasonable inferences in her favor. Cahoo v. SAS Analytics, Inc., 912 F.3d 887, 897 (6th Cir. 

2019).

We must first contend with the district court’s two grounds for dismissing Plaintiff’s 

claims against Bacon and Robinson. Neither justifies dismissal. First, the simple fact that Bacon 

and Robinson’s actions took place in years prior to Duvall’s abuse of C.G. does not necessarily 

defeat Plaintiff’s claims against them, which are not barred by the statute of limitations.8 

Regarding the second ground, Plaintiff’s claims also are not barred by the fact that Bacon and 

Robinson did not have “any supervisory authority over Duvall at the time that he allegedly 

abused C.G.” (See Op., R. 34 at PageID #491.) Just as a party need not have “been present at 

the time of the constitutional violation” in order to be found supervisorily liable, Peatross, 

818 F.3d at 242, they need not have current supervisory authority over the alleged violator. If 

8

In § 1983 cases, “state law determines which statute of limitations applies,” while “federal law determines 

when the statutory period begins to run.” Harrison v. Michigan, 722 F.3d 768, 772–73 (6th Cir. 2013). Because 

§ 1983 actions “are best characterized as personal injury actions,” federal courts apply the statute of limitations 

governing personal injury actions in the state where the action was brought. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 280 

(1985); see also id. at 275–76; Cooey v. Strickland, 479 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir. 2007). Thus, § 1983 claims brought 

in Michigan are subject to its three-year statute of limitations. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2). The statutory 

period begins to run “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know that the act providing the basis of his or her 

injury has occurred.” Collyer v. Darling, 98 F.3d 211, 220 (6th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the earliest that Plaintiff’s

statute of limitations period could have begun to run is October 7, 2014, the day C.G. was injured by Duvall. 

Plaintiff filed her complaint on November 2, 2015, well within the three-year statute of limitations.
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 15

this were not the case, parties would become effectively immune from supervisory liability 

immediately upon leaving the relevant position of authority, even if a violation occurs just days 

later. This is not a logical result—if a supervisor has encouraged a violator’s misconduct, the 

effects of that encouragement do not cease at the moment of the supervisor’s departure. 

Moreover, this would encourage individuals to avoid liability for their supervisee’s constitutional 

violations not by responding to them adequately, but by passing the supervisee down the line to a 

different supervisor—or, more relevantly, by simply transferring the supervisee to another 

school.

Instead, we ask whether Bacon and Robinson acted in a manner demonstrating deliberate 

indifference to the likelihood of Duvall’s future abuse and, if so, whether their deliberately 

indifferent conduct caused his violation of C.G.’s rights. See id. (explaining that there must be 

“a causal connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the violation alleged” in 

order to find that a defendant bears supervisory liability under § 1983). As we have explained 

when discussing causation in the scope of employment discrimination and retaliation actions, 

“[a]lthough temporal proximity . . . is relevant to the question of whether there exists a causal 

connection” between two events, it is not dispositive. Davis v. Rich Prods. Corp., 11 F. App’x 

441, 445 (6th Cir. 2001); accord, e.g., Dixon v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 324, 335 (6th Cir. 2007) 

(explaining that “a mere lapse in time between” two events “does not inevitably foreclose a 

finding of causality” (citing with approval Kachmar v. SunGard Data Sys., Inc., 109 F.3d 173, 

177 (3d Cir. 1997) (“It is important to emphasize that it is causation, not temporal proximity

itself, that is an element of plaintiff’s prima facie case . . . .”))). 

Thus, we must consider whether Defendants’ conduct is a cause in fact and a proximate 

cause of C.G.’s injury. See, e.g., Powers v. Hamilton Cnty. Pub. Def. Comm’n, 501 F.3d 592, 

608 (6th Cir. 2007). “Cause in fact is typically assessed using the ‘but for’ test, which requires 

us to imagine whether the harm would have occurred if the defendant had behaved other than 

[she] did.” Id. “[C]ourts have framed the § 1983 proximate-cause question as a matter of 

foreseeability, asking whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the complained of harm would 

befall the § 1983 plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s conduct.” Id. at 609. Foreseeability 

overlaps with the concept of “directness,” which proximate cause also requires, since “[i]n most 
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 16

cases the more directly related an outcome is to an underlying action, the more likely that the 

outcome will have been foreseeable, and vice versa.” Crosby v. Twitter, Inc., 921 F.3d 617, 624 

(6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Kemper v. Deutsche Bank AG, 911 F.3d 383, 392 (6th Cir. 2018)). 

“[S]ince ‘we presume that general allegations embrace those specific facts . . . necessary to 

support the claim,’ . . . causal weaknesses will more often be fodder for a summary-judgment 

motion under Rule 56 than a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Trollinger v. Tyson Foods, 

Inc., 370 F.3d 602, 615 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 256 (1994)). 

We turn, then, to Plaintiff’s specific claims against Bacon and Robinson.

1. Defendant Sheryl Bacon

In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Bacon received reports that Duvall had slammed 

multiple students into tables and yanked students out of their seats in November 2003; that 

Duvall had slapped a student in April 2005; that he had pushed a child to the floor and scratched 

the child’s face in March 2007; and that since 2004, he had slapped students, grabbed students by 

the neck, dragged students around the room, and squeezed students’ faces. Beyond these 

specific reports, Plaintiff alleges that in 2010, Bacon received three to four additional reports that 

Duvall had been overly physical with students. Together, these reports represented 

approximately ten individual alleged instances of abuse, making them sufficiently consistent and 

numerous to plausibly allege that Bacon possessed information showing Duvall’s strong 

likelihood of re-offense.

Confronted with this information, Plaintiff alleges, Bacon took no action to report or 

investigate allegations of abuse. She further complained that Bacon shredded her notes detailing 

reports against Duvall and actually threatened one individual with termination if she continued to 

make reports, thereby actively concealing Duvall’s history. These allegations plausibly allege 

that, knowing about Duvall’s history, Bacon failed to take adequate precautions to address the 

possibility of future abuse, Roseville, 296 F.3d at 439, and thus approved or acquiesced in this 

conduct, Bellamy, 729 F.2d at 241.
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 17

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims against Bacon are similar to those that this Court 

dealt within in Doe ex rel. Doe v. City of Roseville and Doe v. Claiborne County, and we should 

therefore affirm. But as we explained in Howard v. Knox County,

In Claiborne County, we explicitly held that three supervisor-defendants carried 

out their statutory duty to supervise and report acts of misconduct, including by 

reporting allegations of sexual abuse to the appropriate child-welfare agency, 

removing the accused teacher from student contact during the pendency of the 

investigation, supervising later contact with students, and determining that the 

teacher in question had been “exonerated” of all previous charges. In Doe v. City 

of Roseville, we found that one of the supervisors filed a report with the childwelfare agency and believed that the abuse might be occurring at home, whereas 

the other supervisor did not become aware of a teacher’s history of sexual 

misconduct until after the police launched an investigation.

695 F. App’x at 116 (citations omitted) (citing Claiborne County, 103 F.3d at 513; Roseville, 296 

F.3d at 441). Unlike the defendants in Claiborne County and Roseville, Bacon allegedly took no 

action at all, despite receiving multiple complaints that made her aware of Duvall’s 

misconduct—a clear failure to adequately respond, as her position required her to do.

Moreover, for the purposes of a motion to dismiss, these allegations suffice to suggest 

that Bacon’s conduct caused C.G.’s injuries. Considering foreseeability, it is clearly foreseeable 

that if a teacher’s ongoing physical abuse of students is not responded to, that teacher will 

continue to physically abuse students. Regarding directness, had Bacon reported and 

investigated the allegations against Duvall, some might have been found substantiated and 

sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action or termination. Alternatively, a response from 

Bacon might have discouraged Duvall from continuing to use physical force against students. 

Beyond Duvall’s own decision to abuse students, there is apparently no intervening act in this 

chain of causation, and the causation is thus sufficiently direct. To be sure, the length of time 

between Defendant Bacon’s alleged failures and C.G.’s abuse suggests that Defendants may be 

able to defeat Plaintiff’s allegations in the end. For instance, Defendants may identify an 

intervening cause that terminated the chain of direct causation between Bacon’s conduct and 

Duvall’s abuse or that made it impossible for Defendant Bacon to foresee Duvall’s continued 

abuse. See, e.g., Claiborne County, 103 F.3d at 502, 513 (affirming the dismissal of a 

supervisory liability claim against a superintendent who participated in a decision to remove an 
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 18

allegedly abusive teacher from student contact, as the school board subsequently decided to 

rehire the teacher after the superintendent left his position). But, especially since Defendants 

have not argued that point, this question is best left to the court on summary judgment or to the 

ultimate factfinders. Thus, at this stage, Plaintiff’s claim against Bacon stands, and the district 

court’s dismissal of it is reversed.

The partial dissent suggests that Plaintiff’s complaint describes only three specific 

instances of alleged misconduct that were reported to Bacon. But reading the complaint in the 

light most favorable to Plaintiff and making all reasonable inferences in her favor, as we must, 

Cahoo, 912 F.3d at 897, it alleges far more than that. The reports it contends that Bacon 

received in November 2003, April 2005, and March 2007 together identified instances in which 

Duvall yanked students out of their seats, force-fed students, slammed multiple students into 

tables, slapped a student, and pushed a student to the floor to force candy out of his mouth. (First 

Am. Compl., R. 15 at Page ID ##188–89.) Construing the complaint in Plaintiff’s favor, these 

each constitute separate instances of abuse, even if they were reported together. Moreover, the 

complaint additionally alleges that beginning in 2004, a paraprofessional “timely reported to 

Bacon” instances of abuse including “slapping and squeezing students[,] grabbing students by 

the neck, dragging students around the room, [and] squeezing students’ faces.” (Id. at #191.) 

Again, viewed in Plaintiff’s favor, this constitutes several more instances of abuse. Finally, the 

complaint says that in early 2010, “another teacher reported to Principal Bacon on three to four 

occasions that Duvall was overly physical with students.” (Id. at #189.) While this allegation 

may be insufficiently specific on its own, it also bolsters Plaintiff’s allegations against Duvall. 

Altogether, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, we think these allegations detail 

sufficiently specific and sufficiently numerous instances of Duvall’s abuse to put Bacon on 

notice of the likelihood that Duvall would abuse students in the future. To be sure, there are 

some overlapping details in the reports the complaint discusses, suggesting that they may in fact 

describe the same instances of misconduct. However, assuming as much at this stage would run 

counter to our duty to view the facts alleged in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and to make 

all reasonable inferences in her favor.
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 19

The partial dissent goes on to consider documents in the record which it suggests “do not 

always support . . . that these instances were reported to Bacon.” But the documents that it 

discusses were not before the district court at the time that it considered Bacon’s motion to 

dismiss, and so we cannot consider them in reviewing that dismissal. While those documents 

may be considered at the motion for summary judgment or trial phases, they do not provide 

reason to affirm the district court’s dismissal.

2. Defendant Edna Robinson

Turning then to Plaintiff’s claim against Robinson, Plaintiff alleges that Robinson had 

received complaints that, in October 2012, Duvall threw a drink carton at a student, yanked 

another out of her chair, squeezed and shook a student by the head and neck, and allowed 

another to defecate in his clothing rather than permit him go to the bathroom, as well as 

complaints that he threw a student into a bookcase in February 2014 and that he had done this 

several times before. Beyond this, Plaintiff alleges that an aide asked to be removed from 

Duvall’s classroom because of abuse between 2010 and 2011 and that the school was asked not 

to place a student in Duvall’s classroom based on reported abuse in October 2012. These 

represent several independent reports of abuse over a consolidated period of time leading up to 

the incident with C.G., a sufficiently widespread pattern to make Robinson aware of Duvall’s 

likely future abuse.

Plaintiff further contends that, although Duvall was investigated and suspended for three 

days after grabbing a student by the neck and shaking her, Robinson failed to notify law 

enforcement, Protective Services, or victim guardians about this abuse. And Plaintiff alleges that 

Robinson failed to take any action in response to the other reports.9 This plausibly suggests that 

Robinson failed to take adequate precautions in the face of a widespread pattern of violations. 

Roseville, 296 F.3d at 439.

9We note that some of these allegations may be undermined by evidence entered into the record after 

Robinson’s dismissal, which was secured in discovery on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Alwardt, Caamal 

Canul, and Nickson. However, in reviewing the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, this Court considers the 

sufficiency of the facts pleaded by the plaintiff, not the facts later discovered. Had Plaintiff been allowed to 

continue her claim against Robinson, she might also have uncovered additional evidence that would have bolstered

her case against Robinson at summary judgment.
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 20

Again, unlike the defendants in Claiborne County, Robinson allegedly let incidents go 

altogether uninvestigated or unaddressed, and, again unlike the defendants there, apparently 

never thought the allegations against Duvall unfounded or already dismissed. See 103 F.3d at 

501–02, 513. And unlike the defendants in Roseville, Robinson allegedly never reported any 

abuse to child welfare, despite knowing of multiple instances of abuse, and never undertook 

investigations of multiple other incidents. See 296 F.3d at 434–35.

As before, Plaintiff’s allegations are also sufficient to show causation at this stage. Had 

Robinson notified the requisite authorities about the choking incident or acted in response to 

other allegations against Duvall, those allegations may have been more thoroughly investigated 

and responded to, resulting in disciplinary action against or termination of Duvall. This is a 

sufficiently direct chain of causation. And again, Defendants present no reason for us to 

conclude, at this stage, that Defendant Robinson could not have foreseen C.G.’s injury. Thus, 

we also reverse the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Robinson.

B. Summary Judgment to Defendants Alwardt, Caamal Canul, and Nickson

We next confront Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Alwardt, Caamal Canul, and 

Nickson. Plaintiff claims that these Defendants are liable for Duvall’s violation of C.G.’s rights 

because they were responsible for reporting and responding to Duvall’s misconduct, yet failed to 

take adequate precautions to prevent the continuation of that misconduct. The district court 

granted summary judgment to Defendants, finding that “[their] conduct was, at best, negligent 

and C.G. cannot sustain a section 1983 action against them.” (Op. & Order Den. Summ. J., 

R. 132 at PageID #3469.) It did not reach the question of whether Defendants are entitled to 

qualified immunity. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the district court erred in 

granting summary judgment to Defendants and that Defendants are not entitled to qualified 

immunity.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Minadeo v. ICI 

Paints, 398 F.3d 751, 756 (6th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is appropriate only when “the 

movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “Credibility determinations, the 
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 21

weighing of evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, 

not those of a judge . . . ruling on a motion for summary judgment . . . . The evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [her] favor.” Anderson 

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

1. Defendant Martin Alwardt

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Alwardt, the District’s Director of Special Education, 

demonstrated deliberate indifference to Duvall’s abuse by not ensuring that reports of abuse were 

investigated, failing to follow up on the investigations that were conducted, actually chastising 

Duvall for failing to physically restrain students, not maintaining documentation of Duvall’s 

abuse, and transferring Duvall to a new school despite knowing about his history of abuse. The

evidence suffices to show a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Alwardt bore 

supervisory liability for Duvall’s abuse of C.G.

Considering first the information that Alwardt possessed about Duvall’s history of abuse, 

Alwardt stated in his deposition that the district files did not include any information on Duvall’s 

alleged abuse prior to October 2012, when Dove reported that Duvall had engaged in series of 

abusive acts culminating in choking a student. Plaintiff argues that information about this preOctober 2012 abuse must have been available to Alwardt because it was ultimately produced in 

response to their FOIA requests. But regardless of whether Alwardt had information about 

Duvall’s abuse prior to October 2012, the evidence supports a reasonable inference that 

Defendant Alwardt received enough information about Duvall’s misconduct between October 

2012 and October 2014 to demonstrate his strong likelihood of abusing other students. See 

Claiborne County, 103 F.3d at 513. Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the record 

suggests that Alwardt received at least the following complaints during that time: Ellenwood’s 

April 2012 report that Duvall pushed a student into the wall, pressed on a student’s jaw to get her 

to stop making noises, and generally used physical force with students; Ellenwood’s October 

2012 follow-up letter expressing her dissatisfaction that her reports of abuse were not adequately 

investigated; the timeline of abuse allegations Ellenwood provided to Alwardt in an August 2014 

meeting; Defendant Robinson’s “inconclusive” report on her informal investigation of a parent’s 

complaint that Duvall had bruised a student; Dove’s October 2012 complaints of four instances 
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 22

of abuse, which culminated in Duvall choking a student; CMH’s “firestorm” of complaints that 

Duvall had physically abused students from October 2012; Mid-Michigan Guardianship 

Services’ request that a student not be placed in Duvall’s classroom; reports of the February 

2014 incident involving Duvall throwing another student into a bookcase; and independent 

requests from parents and guardians asking to move their students out of Duvall’s classroom. 

Altogether, these complaints represented allegations of approximately fifteen different 

instances of abuse by Duvall over a period of three years. Taken together, this is far more than 

“isolated” or “sporadic” incidents of abuse. Howard, 695 F. App’x at 113–114. Instead, 

Alwardt was confronted with a widespread pattern of alleged abuse, putting him on notice that 

Duvall had a strong likelihood of future abuse. Moreover, Plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of 

material fact as to whether Alwardt knew that Duvall told Robinson that he would continue to 

use force even after the October 4, 2012 incident. This conversation would provide Alwardt 

with additional notice that Duvall was likely to abuse students in the future.

The record further presents genuine issues of material fact as to whether, armed with this 

knowledge, Alwardt still failed to take adequate precautions to ward off Duvall’s future abuse. 

See Claiborne County, 103 F.3d at 513. Alwardt was jointly responsible for training special 

education teachers and responding to concerns about their performance. Likewise, according to 

Parks, Alwardt was responsible for following up on his investigative reports and authorizing 

future investigations. Despite this, Alwardt admitted that he did not even review investigative 

reports on Duvall’s abuse, raising a genuine issue as to whether Alwardt fulfilled his duty with 

regard to allegations against Duvall. See, e.g., Peatross, 818 F.3d at 243 (denying qualified 

immunity in part based on allegations that the defendant failed to supervise officers alleged to 

have used excessive force and failed to investigate allegations of excessive force properly). 

Likewise, the record presents a genuine issue as to whether Alwardt himself was responsible for 

the District’s failure to investigate other complaints made against Duvall, including Ellenwood’s 

allegations that Duvall physically abused students and the additional reports of abuse that Parks 

uncovered in his investigation of Dove’s 2012 allegations.

While it is evident, as Defendants argue, that Alwardt took some action in response to 

instances of Duvall’s alleged abuse, these minimal responses do not eliminate any genuine issue 
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 23

of material fact as to whether he demonstrated deliberate indifference to the possibility of Duvall 

abusing students in the future. Defendants note that Alwardt reported instances of Duvall’s 

misconduct to HR. But even if true, Duvall continued to engage in abuse even after these 

reports, and many allegations against Duvall were not addressed even after being reported to HR. 

Moreover, if Alwardt himself was responsible for following up on HR reports, the fact that he 

simply reported Duvall’s misconduct to HR does not show that he took adequate precautions. 

Defendants also argue that Alwardt recommended that Duvall be suspended following the 

October 2012 incident. But again, upon Duvall’s return to teaching after his short suspension, 

allegations continued to come in against him, providing Alwardt with notice that this “remedial 

action [was] inadequate and ineffective.” Vance, 231 F.3d at 261. Despite this, Alwardt 

continued to simply refer claims against Duvall to HR, raising a genuine dispute as to whether, 

by “continu[ing] to use those same methods to no avail,” he failed to act reasonably. Id. 

Moreover, the record demonstrates genuine issues as to whether Alwardt actually 

responded to Duvall’s conduct in other ways Defendants suggest. For instance, although 

Defendants say that Alwardt chastised Duvall following the October 2012 incident and told him 

to undergo additional crisis intervention training, Duvall testified that Alwardt never discussed 

any complaints about Duvall’s use of force with him prior to the incident with C.G. and had 

actually chastised him when he failed to use physical restraints. This raises another genuine 

issue as to whether, even when confronted with Duvall’s history, Alwardt encouraged Duvall to 

use force more frequently.

Finally, Defendants say that Alwardt had Duvall transferred to Gardner in response to a 

“firestorm” of allegations against him. But in Doe v. Warren Consolidated Schools, we 

concluded that a defendant’s action to transfer an abusive teacher to a different school, despite 

his knowledge that the teacher posed a danger to students, “constituted ‘knowing acquiescence’ 

to abuse.” 93 F. App’x at 821; accord Howard, 695 F. App’x at 109, 115–16 (finding 

defendants had “heightened the risk of harm to the plaintiff” where they had transferred him to 

the plaintiff’s class despite knowledge of his history of abuse). Again, viewing the evidence in 

Plaintiff’s favor, Alwardt’s decision to place Duvall in a new school, where his colleagues had 

less notice of his history, raises a genuine issue as to whether Alwardt was deliberately 
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 24

indifferent to the possibility of future abuse. Moreover, the record suggests that upon 

transferring Duvall to Gardner, despite having received multiple reports against Duvall and 

knowing that he had been suspended based on one, Alwardt assured Gardner’s principal, 

Defendant Nickson, that Duvall was known to be a good teacher and that none of the allegations 

against him had been substantiated. This, too, arguably further increased Duvall’s risk of

additional abuse.

Defendants again contend that Roseville and Claiborne County require this Court to 

affirm the district court’s judgment as to Alwardt. We disagree. The record suggests that 

Alwardt was presented with many more specific reports of abuse than were any of the 

administrators in Roseville or Claiborne County. See Warren Consolidated Sch., 93 F. App’x at 

821 (concluding that Roseville was “easily distinguishable” from the case at hand where the 

relevant teacher’s misconduct “was repeated and recent, as opposed to sporadic”); Howard, 695 

F. App’x at 114 (denying qualified immunity where “Plaintiffs point[ed] to numerous examples 

where parents and students complained to [the defendant] about specific incidents of abuse 

witness or otherwise discovered, not just a generalized fear of potential abuse”). Some of these 

instances were admitted and others substantiated, providing reason to conclude that Alwardt 

knowingly acquiesced in Duvall’s abuse. See Warren Consolidated Sch., 93 F. App’x at 821. In 

Claiborne County, on the other hand, the defendant school administrators understood that prior 

charges of sexual abuse against a teacher who went on to abuse the plaintiff were “unfounded,” 

had resulted in an “exoneration,” or had been dismissed. 103 F.3d at 503.

Likewise, in Roseville, the defendant school administrators did not believe reports of 

abuse by the teacher who went on to abuse the plaintiff or, after investigation, found there were 

“plausible explanations” for the teacher’s conduct. 296 F.3d at 435. In Warren Consolidated 

Schools, we contrasted the defendant’s knowledge with that in Roseville, explaining that the 

defendant “knew that [the teacher] posed a danger to young girls,” but nevertheless continued to 

expose students to that danger by choosing to transfer the teacher to a school that young girls 

attended. 93 F. App’x at 821. Similarly, in this case, Alwardt was presented with approximately 

fifteen reports of abuse over a period of three years, and he acknowledged that Duvall presented 

a danger to students. (Alwardt Dep., R. 112-24 at PageID #2892 (noting that Alwardt 
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 25

recommended to HR that Duvall be closely monitored because of the number of allegations 

against him).)

Altogether, we are faced with evidence that raises questions as to whether Alwardt failed 

to fulfill his obligation to review investigatory reports, failed to investigate other allegations, 

exposed students to additional risk by transferring Duvall to a new school, and actually verbally 

encouraged the use of force. This evidence demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact as to 

whether Alwardt knowingly acquiesced in or was deliberately indifferent to the possibility that 

Duvall would continue his abuse. Plaintiff’s claim against Alwardt thus withstands summary 

judgment, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise.

2. Defendant Yvonne Caamal Canul

Plaintiff next argues that Defendant Caamal Canul, the District’s Superintendent, 

demonstrated deliberate indifference to Duvall’s abuse by not ensuring that allegations against 

Duvall were investigated and addressed and by not following up on complaints she received 

about him. Plaintiff has also presented sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment on 

her claim that Caamal Canul bore supervisory liability for Duvall’s abuse of C.G.

Like Alwardt, Caamal Canul possessed information showing that Duvall had a strong 

likelihood of abusing other students before October 7, 2014. Viewed in the light most favorable 

to Plaintiff, the record suggests that Caamal Canul had been informed of at least the following 

allegations against Duvall: Ellenwood’s April 2012 complaint, including allegations that Duvall 

had pressed on a student’s face to quiet him or her and pushed another into a wall, in addition to 

general allegations of Duvall being physically rough with students; Ellenwood’s subsequent 

complaints about the District’s failure to investigate of her abuse reports; Mid-Michigan 

Guardianship Services’ letter requesting that a student not be placed in Duvall’s classroom; and 

CMH’s October 2012 complaints, which themselves referenced the October 4 incident in which 

Duvall choked a student and other instances in which Duvall dunked a student’s head under 

water and students returned home bruised. In her deposition, Caamal Canul agreed that she 

received multiple complaints against Duvall within the first few months of being superintendent 

and that the behavior Duvall allegedly engaged in could prompt termination. Thus, Caamal 
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 26

Canul was presented with several specific reports of abuse over a short period of time close to 

the C.G. incident. Caamal Canul did not express that she disbelieved any of these reports, found 

them unsubstantiated, or altogether dismissed them. Especially given the short period of time 

that Caamal Canul had been in the district at that point, these allegations are not “isolated” and 

“sporadic,” but appear consistent and widespread. See Howard, 695 F. App’x at 113–14.

Moreover, the record suggests that two of the complaints of which Caamal Canul was 

made aware—those from Ellenwood and CMH—alleged that the District had insufficiently 

investigated, addressed, and reported prior instances of misconduct, further putting Caamal 

Canul on notice that the instances reported were not the only possible instances of abuse by 

Duvall. Thus, to the extent that Caamal Canul was not informed of more incidents of Duvall’s 

abuse, this was because of her own failure to inquire into whether allegations against him were 

indeed adequately investigated and reported. Supervisors may not “turn a blind eye [to 

misconduct] for fear of what they might see” and then claim they were not liable because they 

did not see. Roseville, 296 F.3d at 440 (quoting Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 

(7th Cir. 2001)). The fact that Caamal Canul had received reports that complaints against Duvall 

had not been sufficiently investigated also provided her reason to conclude that additional 

incidents may have taken place. 

Plaintiff has further raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether, confronted with this 

knowledge, Caamal Canul fulfilled her obligations to address it. Caamal Canul acknowledged in 

her deposition that she had responsibility for ensuring student safety, for ensuring teachers were 

trained on mandatory reporting requirements and how to prevent child abuse, for establishing 

and administering a system for reporting employee misconduct, and for generally ensuring the 

District’s compliance with Michigan law. CMH specifically reported that the District had failed 

to notify CMH, a student guardian, or protective services about alleged instances of abuse, and 

that parents’ requests for information about alleged instances of abuse had gone unanswered. 

Despite this, the record suggests that Caamal Canul did not confirm that the District was indeed 

notifying the legally required parties of allegations, but simply passed the report to her 

subordinates to follow up without instruction. She also heard that Ellenwood was dissatisfied 

with the District’s investigation of her reports. Similarly, the record suggests Caamal Canul did 
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 27

nothing to confirm that prior investigations were indeed thorough, let alone to confirm that other 

alleged incidents had been sufficiently investigated.

Thus, when Caamal Canul was put on notice, by both Ellenwood and CMH, that the 

systems she was responsible for were failing, she simply continued to channel reports into those 

systems by referring the complaints to HR employees and subordinates without follow-up. This 

raises a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Caamal Canul acquiesced in Duvall’s 

continued abuse of children. If a defendant knows that her previous action to address alleged 

violations was inadequate and ineffective, simply repeating those same actions may constitute 

deliberate indifference. Vance, 231 F.3d at 261. Accordingly, the district court erred in granting 

summary judgment to Defendant Caamal Canul.

3. Defendant Connie Nickson

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Nickson, the principal of Gardner at the time Duvall 

abused C.G., demonstrated deliberate indifference to the possibility of Duvall’s future abuse by 

failing to act on evidence suggesting he had thrown a student into a bookcase, failing to speak 

with Duvall about this incident, failing to inquire into Duvall’s history of physical abuse, failing 

to ensure that Duvall was properly trained on using physical force with students, failing to 

develop an improvement plan for Duvall, and by actively encouraging his misconduct. Again, 

Plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant Nickson bore 

supervisory liability for Duvall’s abuse of C.G.

Like Alwardt and Caamal Canul, Defendant Nickson possessed information showing 

Duvall’s widespread pattern of abusing children well before October 2014. Specifically, viewed 

in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the evidence suggests she had heard about Duvall’s 

historical “issues with [being] hands on” with students as of when he was transferred to Gardner, 

(Nickson Dep., R. 112-30 at PageID ##3178–79); the February 2014 report about Duvall 

throwing a student into a bookcase; other reports of Duvall throwing students that came out in 

the investigation of the February 2014 incident; and that a student had been pulled from Duvall’s 

classroom in May 2014 because the student’s mother perceived it to be an unsafe environment. 

Again, these include multiple specific reports of abuse—some substantiated—over a short period 
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 28

of time soon before Duvall’s abuse of C.G. While investigations concluded that there was 

insufficient evidence of some of these allegations, again none were considered unfounded, nor 

was Duvall exonerated in any of them. This is enough to raise a genuine issue of material fact as 

to whether Nickson possessed information about a widespread pattern of abuse.

Defendants argue that Nickson notified HR about any reports of abuse that she received. 

But Nickson could not confirm any of the specifics of her reports to HR—whom she spoke to, 

when, or how she made that notification—instead only speaking to what she “would have” done. 

(Id. at ##3176–77, 3180–81.) Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, this raises a 

question of whether Nickson notified HR at all. Similarly, Nickson could not confirm that she 

notified the parents of the victims or law enforcement, as required, or that she conducted any 

additional investigation of the incidents. Nickson also could not recall speaking with Duvall 

about the February 2014 incident and, when asked if she did anything to prevent future incidents 

like this, she said that she simply “assumed he was okay to work” based on HR’s word. (Id. at 

#3179.)

The record further allows the reasonable inference that Nickson actively encouraged 

Duvall’s misconduct and abuse of children. Despite finding Duvall’s history of abuse 

concerning, (id. at ##3179, 3181), Nickson consistently provided strong positive reviews of 

Duvall, (see, e.g., Alwardt Dep., R. 112-24 at PageID #2890 (noting that Nickson said Duvall 

was “an excellent teacher,” “a team player willing to take on tasks, and help out in any way,” and 

“good for the building”)). In conducting Duvall’s performance review after the February 2014 

incident, Nickson gave him a perfect score on classroom management. This conduct also raises 

a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Nickson condoned Duvall’s alleged behavior. 

Together, the record evidence more than suffices to allow Plaintiff’s claim that Nickson 

bore supervisory liability for C.G.’s abuse to stand. The district court erred in concluding 

otherwise.

4. Qualified Immunity

Having found that the district court erred in its analysis of whether Defendants committed 

a constitutional violation, we next consider whether summary judgment was instead appropriate 
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 29

on grounds of qualified immunity. The district court did not reach the question of qualified 

immunity, but “[t]his court can affirm a decision of the district court on any grounds supported 

by the record, even if different from those relied on by the district court.” Brown v. Tidwell, 

169 F.3d 330, 332 (6th Cir. 1999) (per curiam); see also Sigley v. City of Parma Heights, 

437 F.3d 527, 536 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting that the district court did not address qualified 

immunity, but nonetheless considering it as it “presents a purely legal issue”).

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil 

damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 

rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 

231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). In deciding if an official 

is entitled to qualified immunity, we generally employ the two-step inquiry laid out in Saucier v. 

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001). Thus, we ask whether, viewing the facts alleged in the light most 

favorable to the injured party and resolving genuine disputes of fact in her favor, the facts “show 

the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right.” Id. at 201. We then consider “whether the 

right was clearly established.” Id. We may exercise our discretion to decide in what sequence to 

address these questions. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236.

As discussed above, under the standards applied at the summary judgment stage, Plaintiff 

has shown that Alwardt, Caamal Canul, and Nickson did violate a constitutional right.10 The 

question is now whether this right was clearly established. Generally speaking, “[i]t is well

established that persons have a [F]ourteenth [A]mendment liberty interest in freedom from 

bodily injury.” Webb v. McCullough, 828 F.2d 1151, 1158 (6th Cir. 1987); see also Howard, 

695 F. App’x at 113. Likewise, C.G. “had a clearly established right under the substantive 

component of the Due Process Clause to personal security and to bodily integrity.” Claiborne 

County, 103 F.3d at 507. We have applied that right in the context of both sexual abuse, see id., 

and physical abuse of students, see Howard, 695 F. App’x at 113.

10Defendants do not assert that Bacon and Robinson are entitled to qualified immunity, and so this issue is 

not preserved for our review. (Def. Br. at 23; see also id. at 1 n.1 (noting that “the Administrators” refers to 

Alwardt, Caamal Canul, and Nickson); id. at 42–46 (arguing that the Administrators are entitled to qualified 

immunity).)
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 30

However, we may only deny qualified immunity if “[t]he contours of the right . . . [are] 

sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that 

right.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). We thus consider “‘whether the 

violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established’ . . . ‘in light of the specific context 

of the case, not as a broad general proposition.’” Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015) 

(first quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 742 (2011); and then quoting Brosseau v. 

Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004) (per curiam)). The Supreme Court has clarified that “the very 

action in question” need not have been previously held unlawful, but “in the light of pre-existing 

law the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640.

In Warren Consolidated Schools, we concluded that the defendant was not entitled to 

qualified immunity upon finding that he was confronted with a widespread pattern of allegations 

of abuse by a teacher. 93 F. App’x at 822–23. We found it significant that the defendant did not 

claim that he disbelieved the abuse allegations made against the teacher in question and that the 

defendant acknowledged that the teacher’s behavior was inappropriate and dangerous to 

students. Id. We concluded that a reasonable official would thus know that his actions were 

unlawful, and denied qualified immunity. Id. In this case, too, we are faced with three 

Defendants who agreed that Duvall’s alleged conduct was concerning and harmful to students. 

Likewise, the Defendants do not claim that they disbelieved the allegations against Duvall. Yet 

the record suggests Defendants alternately funneled any reports about Duvall’s conduct into the 

same system that had failed to adequately respond to Duvall’s conduct, encouraged Duvall to use 

more physical restraints, placed Duvall in classrooms alongside colleagues who were not made 

aware of his history, and even provided glowing reviews of his management style. We conclude 

that a reasonable official in any of Defendants’ positions would know that his or her response to 

Duvall’s abuse was insufficient and unlawful. Defendants therefore are not entitled to qualified 

immunity.

Because the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Alwardt, Caamal 

Canul, and Nickson also cannot be upheld on this alternative ground, we reverse that judgment.
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 31

II. Motion to Amend

After the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s initial claims against the District,11 Plaintiff 

filed a motion to amend her pleadings to add a claim that the District maintained customs, 

policies, and practices demonstrating deliberate indifference to C.G.’s right to bodily integrity 

that proximately caused his injury. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. The district court denied 

Plaintiff leave to amend. We review that denial for an abuse of discretion. Inge v. Rock Fin. 

Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002).

Following its first amendment of a pleading or after twenty-one days following service of 

that pleading, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or 

the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(2). However, when a party seeks to amend its pleadings or join additional defendants after 

the expiration of scheduling order deadlines, it must show good cause under Rule 16(b). Inge,

281 F.3d at 625; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (stating that the trial “schedule may be 

modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent”). “The primary measure of Rule 

16’s ‘good cause’ standard is the moving party’s diligence in attempting to meet” the scheduling 

order’s requirements, but courts also consider “possible prejudice to the party opposing the 

modification.” Inge, 281 F.3d at 625 (quoting Bradford v. DANA Corp., 249 F.3d 807, 809 (8th 

Cir. 2001)).

Plaintiff filed her motion to amend the complaint on June 20, 2017. This was almost nine 

months after the scheduling order’s deadline for motions to join parties or amend pleadings. In 

an attempt to show good cause for her delay, Plaintiff explained that her motion was grounded in 

new evidence she discovered when she deposed Duvall following that deadline. The district 

court found that Plaintiff had not shown good cause because she “had all the information [she] 

needed to timely allege Monell claims against [the District], both at the time [she] filed [her] 

initial complaint and prior to the expiration of the deadline for amendments,” and thus “[could 

11Plaintiff originally asserted claims against the District for violations of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act. 

The district court subsequently dismissed each of these claims, and Plaintiff does not challenge those dismissals on 

appeal.
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 32

not] show that, despite [her] diligence, [she] could not have met the deadline for amendments in 

the Case Management Order.” (Order Den. Pl. Mot. to Amend Compl., R. 90 at PageID #975.)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in so finding. Plaintiff’s proposed Monell

claim was based on the District’s alleged failure to investigate or act upon complaints against 

Duvall, failure to take appropriate disciplinary action against Duvall, and failure to report 

instances of abuse to appropriate authorities as legally required. Although Plaintiff claims that 

she discovered these failures only upon deposing Duvall on May 4, 2017, Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint actually detailed these same allegations. Moreover, evidence provided to 

Plaintiff on April 10, 2015, more than a year prior to the scheduling deadline, included 

information about the District’s investigations—or lack thereof—into Duvall’s prior misconduct 

and the disciplinary action taken against him. And Plaintiff received information about the 

District’s policies regarding seclusion and the use of force by at least September 29, 2016, when 

Defendants submitted their Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures. Plaintiff cannot show that her Monell

claim against the District was unavailable prior to Duvall’s deposition, and thus has not shown 

good cause for her delay.

Although the district court did not explicitly address whether allowing Plaintiff’s delayed 

amendment would prejudice the Defendants, it is clear that it would. “The longer the delay, the 

less prejudice the opposing party will be required to show.” DuBuc v. Green Oak Township, 

312 F.3d 736, 752 (6th Cir. 2002). With her motion, Plaintiff sought to rejoin a party against 

whom all claims had been dismissed a year before. While several District administrators 

remained involved in the case, the District had a separate interest in the case. Protecting that 

interest could require new depositions of individuals who had already been deposed, additional 

discovery, and additional delay to allow District attorneys to familiarize themselves with the 

updated record. Even assuming Defendants would be less prejudiced than they might otherwise 

have been because District administrators were still involved in the lawsuit, this still presented 

considerable reason to find prejudice.

Plaintiff could not justify her late motion to amend the complaint by showing either good 

cause or a lack of prejudice. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying that 

motion. We affirm its decision.
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 33

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s 

claims against Defendants Bacon and Robinson and its grant of summary judgment to 

Defendants Alwardt, Caamal Canul, and Nickson, AFFIRM its denial of Plaintiff’s motion to 

amend her pleadings, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 34

_________________________________________________

CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART

_________________________________________________

BOGGS, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Sheryl Bacon retired as 

Principal of the Beekman Center at the end of the 2010–11 school year. More than three years 

later, as set forth in the court’s opinion, a student was (as alleged) physically abused by his 

teacher, Lester Duvall, at a different school. Duvall had taught at Principal Bacon’s school for 

many years, through the time of her retirement. 

As set forth in the court’s opinion, there were three specific instances of alleged 

misconduct by Duvall at Beekman, in 2003, 2005, and 2007. (See op. at 3). In each instance, the 

opinion and complaint use the term “reported” for these incidents, although the documents in the 

record do not always support a direct statement that these instances were reported to Bacon. 

The documents consist of either typed or handwritten statements, with no indication that 

they were mailed or delivered to anyone. One set, for the 2007 incident, are not headed in any 

way. A second set of two statements, about the 2005 incident, are headed “To Whom It May 

Concern.” The third document is in the form of a letter addressed to “David,” with no indication 

of who that might be, concerning a 2003 incident. Only one statement, which is one of the two 

from 2005, adverts to the author speaking to Bacon, as accurately reported at page 3 of the 

court’s opinion.

There are also statements made later, long after Bacon had retired, by Rezan Ellenwood 

and others, stating, in general terms, that the person had reported misconduct by Duvall to 

Bacon, without effect. 

The legal question is whether, even at the motion-to-dismiss stage, allegations of three 

specific instances of unaddressed abuse over an eight-year period, along with more general 

statements, can suffice to support the possibility of liability for a principal for events that 

occurred more than three years after the principal retired. In my view, the chain of any possible 

causation is simply too attenuated to sustain that burden. Otherwise, any educational official 

who does not respond appropriately to misconduct by an underling can be held liable for that 
No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 35

person’s misconduct in other locations, apparently into perpetuity. I do not read our precedents 

as supporting that degree of boundless liability, and I therefore respectfully dissent as to 

reversing the district court’s judgment dismissing the suit against Principal Bacon. In all other 

respects I concur in the court’s opinion.