2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-27-2011

OR v. Gerri Hutner

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-4493

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"OR v. Gerri Hutner" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 778.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/778
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 10-4493

_____________

O.R. (a Student)

 Appellant

v.

GERRI HUTNER; RICK CAVE; ROBBY VARGHESE;

LISA CATALANO; KATHY MITCHEL; THOMAS A. SMITH;

VICTORIA KNIEWEL(School Superintendent);

DONNA GIBBS-NINI; ARTHUR DOWNS (Principal);

CHARLES RUDNICK(Principal); DENNIS LEPOLD (Principal);

MICHAEL ZAPICCHI (Principal); 

WEST WINDSOR PLAINSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT

_____________

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

District Court No. 3-10-cv-01711

District Judge: The Honorable Anne E. Thompson

_____________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

July 11, 2011

Before: RENDELL, SMITH, and FISHER, Circuit Judges

(Filed: July 27, 2011)

_____________________

 OPINION

_____________________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.
2

O.R., a former student of the West Windsor Plainsboro School District, was 

suspended from school for 10 days and referred to police for prosecution for 

possession of a knife on school property. Thereafter, he initiated several state 

court actions against the School District and its employees, which either 

challenged his suspension, sought the production of records by the School District 

under New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. § 47:1A1-13, or 

alleged that he had been treated differently than similarly situated Caucasian 

students.1 While one of the state court actions was proceeding, O.R. initiated this 

federal action alleging that the School District had violated his constitutional right 

of access to the courts, as well as his rights under the Equal Protection Clause and 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. The School District 

filed two Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. 

The District Court recognized that the constitutional right of access to the 

courts is limited and that “only prefiling conduct that either prevents a plaintiff 

from filing suit or renders the plaintiff’s access to the court ineffective or 

meaningless constitutes a constitutional violation.” Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 

318 F.3d 497, 511 (3d Cir. 2003). In light of the “long series of lawsuits[,]” the 

 

1

 As the District Court noted, one of the state court actions alleged that the School 

District had violated O.R.’s civil rights. After the School District removed the action to 

federal court, O.R. dropped his federal claims and successfully moved to remand the case 

to state court. 
3

District Court appropriately concluded that O.R.’s claims that certain conduct 

prevented him from filing suit failed as a matter of law. In addition, the District 

Court granted the motion to dismiss the equal protection and Title VI claims

because, inter alia, O.R.’s averments failed to allege sufficient facts to state a 

claim under either theory. Thereafter, the Court denied O.R.’s motion to amend 

his complaint, concluding that any attempt would be futile. In addition, the Court 

granted the School District’s motion for sanctions.

This timely appeal followed.2 After considering the briefs of the parties and 

the record before us, we will affirm for substantially the reasons given by the 

District Court.3 

 

2

 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. We exercise 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over an order granting 

a motion to dismiss. Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 128 (3d Cir. 2010). 

We review an order denying a motion to amend under Rule 15 for abuse of discretion. 

Bjorgung v. Whitetail Resort, LP, 550 F.3d 263, 266 (3d Cir. 2008). We also apply an 

abuse of discretion standard in reviewing an order imposing sanctions. Ario v. 

Underwriting Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyds for 1998 Year of Account, 618 F.3d 

277, 287 (3d Cir. 2010).

3

 The Motion by Appellant to Supplement the Record on Appeal is denied. The Motion 

by Appellant to file an Amended Notice of Appeal is granted.