Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DESENDA S. GORAM 

and TACOUS GORAM 

 Plaintiffs,

vs. 3:10cv123/WS/MD

NORM ROSS, 

DARRELL WHITE, and

LEORAH MIMS,

 Defendants.

O R D E R

Plaintiff Desenda Goram has filed an amended civil rights complaint and a motion

for clarification of the court’s previous order regarding the status of her son and co-plaintiff,

Tacous Goram. (Doc. 5 & 6).

The court sealed the initial complaint because it was not clear whether Desenda

Goram’s son, Tacous Goram, was a minor. Through her most recent submissions,

Desenda Goram has now clarified that although Tacous Goram was a minor when the

events in questions occurred, he has reached the age of majority. (Doc. 6). Therefore, it

is appropriate to un-seal the original complaint and to allow Tacous Goram to proceed as

a plaintiff in his own right, either individually or jointly with his mother. He will be required 1

to submit his own motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and if the parties choose to

proceed jointly, they must file an amended complaint that is signed under penalty of perjury

by each plaintiff. 

1 In the event the parties proceed jointly, they are advised that henceforth, each party plaintiff is required

to sign every pleading filed with the court (with the exception of each party’s in forma pauperis application).
Page 2 of 5

Pared to their essence, the allegations in the complaint are that defendant

Escambia High School Principal Leorah Mims wrote a letter to the superintendent of

schools on February 4, 2009 requesting that Tarous Goram be expelled for possession of

cocaine as a result of an incident that occurred on February 2, 2009. (Doc. 5 at 5). Ms.

Mims did this although lab tests on the substance were not yet complete. (Id.). A “due

process committee” comprised of defendants Sheena Payne, David Venettozzi and

Ramonia Turner and Darrell White, Court Liason held a hearing on February 18, 2009 as

a result of Ms. Mims’ letter and recommended Tarous’s expulsion although the lab report

was still not available. After a final hearing on April 21, 2009, school board members Bill

Slanton, Linda Moutrie, Patricia Hightower and Gerald Boone all voted to expel Tarous,

although the lab results returned on March 12, 2009 were negative for narcotics. (Id. at 8).

Plaintiff alleges that the suspension improperly occurred because defendant Darrell White,

the Court Liason for the Escambia County school board, failed to timely ensure the test

results were provided to the proper individuals. On November 3, 2009, Ms. Goram met

with Norm Ross, Deputy Superintendent of Schools about the situation. As a result of this

meeting, on February 16, 2010, the School Board held a hearing at which it voted to

rescind Tarous’s expulsion, and wrote Ms. Goram a letter advising that her son’s records

would be changed. However, over two months later, school records still indicate he was

(or is) expelled for possession of cocaine. 

Accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, it is not clear who are the proper

parties in this action. There were many factors leading to Tarous’s expulsion and many

individuals (or entities) involved in this decision-making. Ms. Mims allegedly wrote a letter

asking for the expulsion without the lab results, but defendants Payne, Venettozzi and

Turner who comprised the “due process committee” of the School Board (which is not itself

named as a defendant) voted to expel. Defendant White’s failed to pass along test results

in a timely fashion, but School Board members Slanton, Moutrie, Hightower and Boone

approved the expulsion apparently without asking about the lab test results. And, although

defendant Ross is named as a defendant, from the allegations in the complaint it appears

that he agreed with Ms. Goram that there was a problem and scheduled a hearing,

Case No: 3:10cv123/WS/MD
Page 3 of 5

although perhaps not as promptly as Ms. Goram would have liked. Finally, after the

decision of the School Board, it is not clear who was or is responsible for the fact that

Tarous Goram’s name still has not been cleared. Again, as drafted, the School Board is

not a named defendant in the complaint.

The amended complaint asserts that the named defendants have violated Tarous’s 

due process rights and requests monetary relief, punitive damages and a letter of apology. 

Although Desenda Gorma alleges that she suffered stress and pain as a result of the

alleged violation of her son’s rights, it does not appear that she personally claims to have

been the victim of a constitutional violation, and she does not set forth a basis for any other

sort of claim. In fact, there is no obvious reference to her in the statement of claims. 

The parties will recall that to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the

initial inquiry must focus on whether two essential elements are present:

1. whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting

under color of state law; and

2. whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 2254-55, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988) (citations

omitted); Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256, 1258 (11 Cir. 2005) (citing West). If plaintiff

th

Desenda Goram has no legal basis to state a viable claim against any of the named

defendants, whether under § 1983 or otherwise, she should be deleted as a party in this

action. Tarous Goram, who is no longer a minor, may pursue this case on his own behalf.

In any event, the parties will be required to file an amended complaint.

In amending, plaintiff(s) must name as defendants only those persons who are

responsible for the alleged constitutional violations. All parties’ names must be written in

the style of the case on the first page of the civil rights complaint form, and their names,

addresses and employment positions should be written in the “Parties” section of the form

on page two. In the statement of facts, plaintiff(s) should clearly describe how each named

defendant is involved in each alleged constitutional violation, alleging the claims as to each

defendant in separately numbered paragraphs and including specific dates and times of

Case No: 3:10cv123/WS/MD
Page 4 of 5

the alleged unconstitutional acts. It is essential that the facts relating to each defendant

be set out clearly and in detail because in civil rights cases, more than conclusory and

vague allegations are required to state a cause of action. Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d

1282, 1284 (11 Cir. 2001); GJR Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia, Florida, 132 th

F.3d 1359, 1366 (11 Cir. 1998); Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556-57 (11 Cir. th th

1984). If plaintiff(s) cannot state exactly how a particular defendant caused harm, that

person should be deleted or dropped as a defendant from the complaint. In the section

entitled “Statement of Claim,” plaintiff(s) must state what rights have allegedly been

violated, having provided support in the statement of facts for the claimed violations. If a

plaintiff has no basis for a viable claim that individual should be deleted as a party in this

action. Plaintiff(s) are advised that the amended complaint must contain all of the pertinent

allegations because once an amended complaint is filed, all earlier complaints and filings

are disregarded. Local Rule 15.1, Northern District of Florida. 

Plaintiff(s) should file the amended complaint with an original signature with the

Court and keep an identical copy for personal reference. Plaintiff(s) should not file a

memorandum of law or otherwise provide citations to statutes and cases, or file exhibits

as evidentiary support for the complaint. The court will advise when memoranda and

exhibits are necessary, such as prior to trial or in conjunction with a motion for summary

judgment. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (doc. 6) is GRANTED to the extent this order has

issued.

The clerk shall unseal document 1, the initial complaint in this action, and amend

the docket to reflect the full name of plaintiff Tarous Goram based on plaintiff Desenda

Goram’s representation that Tarous Goram is not a minor.

The clerk shall forward to plaintiff Tarous Goram an in forma pauperis application

for use by non-prisoners as well as a civil rights complaint form. This case number and the

words “second amended complaint” should be written on the form. Within 28 days from

Case No: 3:10cv123/WS/MD
Page 5 of 5

the date of this order, plaintiff Tarous Goram shall file a motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, or pay the $350.00 filing fee.

Within 28 days from the date of this order plaintiff Tarous Goram or plaintiffs Tarous

Goram and Desendra Goram shall file a second amended complaint signed by each

plaintiff as set forth herein. 

Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this case be

dismissed for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with an order of the court. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 12 day of May, 2010. th

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No: 3:10cv123/WS/MD