2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-27-2011 

# OR v . Ge r r i H utne r
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 10-4493

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" OR v . Ge r r i H utne r " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 778. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_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### NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT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; THOMA S 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 f

rom the United States District Court for the D istrict 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 2 7 , 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 Sc hool 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 tha n similarly situated Caucasian students. 1 

### While one of the state court action s was proceeding, O

. R

. initiated this fe deral 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 file d 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 c ertain conduct prevented him from filing suit failed as a matter o f law

. In addition, t he District Court gra nted the motion to dismiss the equal protection and Title VI claim s because , inter alia , O

. R

. ’s averments failed to allege sufficient facts to stat e 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 jurisdic t ion under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. We exerc ise 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 discre tion. 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 Lloy ds for 1998 Year of Account , 618 F.3d 2 77, 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.