### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Dec e m be r 22, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 13709 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -002 01 -C V -M -N E . M I C H E L L E W O R T H I N G T O N , o n b e h a lf o f m in o rc h ild , J W , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s E L M O R E C O U N T Y B O A R D O F E D U C A T I O N , M A R S H A L L A N D E R S O N , A s s is ta n t S u p e r in te n d e n t o f

E d u c a tio n , s u e d in d iv id u a lly , P A T E L L IS , A dm i ni stra t or of the i nt ensi ve T herapeut i c P la c e m e n t C e n te r , s u e d in d iv id u a lly , H E N R Y B L A K E , in d iv id u a lly , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s , B R U C E F U L M E R , S u p e r in te n d a n t o f E d u cat i o n , su ed i n h i s o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity , C A R O L M C G A L L I A R D , A s s is ta n t S upe r i nt e nde ntof

E duc a t i on, s ue d in d iv id u a lly a n d in h e ro f f ic ia l c ap a c ity , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts .The pa rties consented to the jurisdiction of a mag istrate judg e. 1 2

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 22, 2005) B efo re H U L L , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M i c he l l e W or thi ngt on, on be ha l f of he rm i norc hi l d J . W . , f i l e d thi s 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 sui tagai nstthe E l m ore C ou nty B oard of E du ca t i on (the “ B oard”) and v ar i ou s i nd i vi du al defe nd ant s, al l egi ng thather s on ’ s c on st i tut i on al ri gh t s w er e vi ol at ed w hen h e w as se xu al l y a ss aul t ed by anot her s tud enton hi s s peci al e d u c a tio n s c h o o l b u s . W o r th in g to n a ls o a s s e r te d a s ta te la w n e g lig e n c e c la im agai nstthe bu s dri ver, H enry B l ake. T he m agi stra t e j ud ge hel d a j ury tri al bu t , at the c l os e of

W or thi ngt on’ s c a s e , gr a nt e d j udgm e nta s a m a tt e rof l a w i n f a vorof the B oard and B l ake. O n app ea l , W orthi ng t on chal l enges the grantof j ud gm entas 1 a m att erof l aw on l y a s t o h er§ 1 98 3 cl ai m agai nstthe B oard and h ernegl i gence c l a i m a g a i n s tBl a k e . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D A tthe t i m e of

the i nc i de nt , O c t obe r3, 2002, J . W . w a s s e ve n y e a r s ol d a nd3

w a s e nr ol l e d i n the I nt e ns i ve T he r ape ut i c P l a c e m e ntC e nt e r( “ I T P C ” ) i n the E l m o re C o u n ty S ch o o l S yst em . A cco rd i n g t o th e p art i es’ j o i n tst i p u l at i o n o f fact s, IT P C i s “ an al t ernat i ve sc ho ol for s tud ent s w i th b ehavi oral and em ot i on al p r o b le m s .” W h ile e n r o lle d a t I T P C in th e f a ll o f 2 0 0 2 , J .W . r e g u la r ly r o d e a s m a ll, s pe c i a l e duc a t i on bus , w i th f i ve s e a t s a nd s pa c e s f

orw he e l c ha i r s , t o a nd f r om s c hool . T hi s bus tr a ns por t a t i on w a s pr ovi de d by the B oa r d. J. W . ’ s b u s ri d e t o sch o o l each d ay w as ab o u tth i rty m i l es, an d th ere w as a s pe c i f i c a uthor i z e d l oc a t i on a tw hi c h the bus dr i ve rw a s t o pi c k J . W . up i n the m o rn in g a n d d r o p h im o f f in th e a f te rn o o n . O n O ct ob er3, 20 02 , J. W . ’ s r egul arbu s dri ver w as abse nt , and H enry B l ake, a s ubs t i tut e bus dr i ve rf orthe E l m or e C ounty S c hool S y s t e m , w a s c a l l e d i n t o dr i ve the bu s. J. W . al l eges thathe w as se xu al l y m ol es t ed and ass aul t ed on the bu s that a f te rn o o n b y J .M ., a n o th e rs tu d e n t w h o w a s e le v e n y e a r s o ld a t th e tim e . A c c or di ng t o J . W . , J . M . of f e r e d J . W . c a ndy i f

he c a m e a nd s a tne xtt o J . M . i n the b u s s e a t. J .M . th e n p u lle d o u t h is p e n is , s h o o k it, a n d c o n v in c e d J .W . to s h a k e it a n d to p u t h is m o u th a r o u n d it. J .M . th e n tu rn e d J .W . a r o u n d , p u lle d h is p a n ts d o w n , a n d a tte m p te d to p e n e tr a te J .W .’s a n u s . W h e n J .W . c o m p la in e d th a t it h u r t, J . M . turne d J . W . a r ound a nd a ga i n c onvi nc e d hi m t o s ha ke J . M . ’ s pe ni s unt i l heThe de fenda nts dispute that these events occurred and point to evidenc e that J.M. denied 2 any physical contact. 4 e j a c ul a t e d. 2 T hataf t erno on , H enry B l ake l etJ. W . off a ta s t op other than h i s autho ri ze d s t op. J . W . w a s pi c ke d up by a nothe rbus dr i ve r , w ho f ound J . W . w a l ki ng a l ong the hi ghw a y m or e tha n a m i l e f r om hom e a nd t ook J . W . hom e . J . W . t ol d hi s m othe rof th e a ll eg ed ev en ts, an d W o rth in g to n co n tacted th e E lm o re C o u n ty S h er iff’s D epartm ent . J. W . w as t aken t o the ho spi t al t o b e e xam i ned and al so gave a s t a t e m e ntt o E l m or e C ounty S he r i f f’ s D e puty R . G . H e a d. T he nextday, W orthi ng t on and J. W . m etw i th E l m ore C ou nty C hi ef Invest i gat or G . W . K ra cke. A tthe concl usi on of thatm ee t i ng , they a l l w er e c al l ed to th e s c h o o l, w h e r e th e y m e t I T P C A d m in is tr a to rP a t E llis . I n v e s tig a to rK r a c k e , s c hool c ouns e l orL e s S c hl e ns ke r , a nd A s s oc i a t e S upe r i nt e nda ntM a r s ha l l A nde r s on m etw i th J. M . and h i s guardi an. A cc ordi ng t o K ra cke’ s tri al t es t i m on y, “ [i ] tw as ve ry di f f i c ul tt o t a l k w i th [ J . M . ] . B utba s e d on w ha tI w a s i nt e rpr e t i ng hi m s a y i ng, thathe w as adm i tt i ng t o a se xu al ac ton the bu s. ” S chl ensker , ho w ever , t es t i fi ed thatJ. M . deni ed any physi ca l cont ac t . A nd er son al so t es t i fi ed thatJ. M . deni ed ph ys i ca l cont ac tbu tadm i tt ed thatthe tw o b oys had expo se d them se l ves t o eac h o th e r . A f t e rthe i nc i de nt , J . W . a nd J . M . c ont i nue d t o a tt e nd I T P C butw e r e t a ught5

i n separ at e c l as sr oo m s. T hey both rod e the bu s f rom the IT P C t o the ca fe t er i a a t W e tum pka H i gh S c hool f orl unc h, butw e r e s e a t e d w i th the i row n c l a s s e s a nd supervi se d atal l t i m es . N o p robl em s a re al l eged t o h ave a ri se n o n these tri ps. In D e c e m b e r2 0 0 2 , W o r th in g to n r e m o v e d J .W . f r o m I T P C a n d th e E lm o r e C o u n ty S c h o o l S y s te m , a n d J .W . b e g a n a tte n d in g s c h o o l in th e J e m is o n S c h o o l S y s te m . On Ma r c h 4 , 2 0 0 4 , Wo r th i n g t o n f i l e d th i s a c t i o n i n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t . As a m e n d e d , W o r th in g to n ’s c o m p la in t a s s e r te d c la im s a g a in s t th e B o a r d a n d a v a r ie ty of i ndi vi dua l de f

e nda nt s f orvi ol a t i ons of

the F our t e e nth A m e ndm e nt , T i t l e I X , a nd st at e l aw . S peci fi ca l l y, W orthi ng t on ’ s c l ai m s r el evantt o thi s app ea l w er e ( 1) that he rs on’ s F our t e e nth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o bodi l y i nt e gr i ty a nd t o be f r e e f r om s e xua l a s s a ul tw a s vi ol a t e d a s a r e s ul tof the B oa r d’ s pol i c i e s , a nd ( 2) tha tB l a ke n e g lig e n tly s u p e r v is e d h e rs o n a n d J .M . o n th e b u s , le a d in g to th e a s s a u lt. A ttri al , aft er W o rth i n g t o n rest ed , th e d efen d an t s m o v ed fo r j u d g m en tas a m a tte ro f la w . T h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e g r a n te d th e m o tio n a s to th e F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t c la im a g a in s t th e B o a r d , c o n c lu d in g th a t th e a s s a u lt d id n o t r e s u lt f r om a B oa r d pol i c y . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge f ur the rgr a nt e d j udgm e nta s a m a tt e rof l a w i n f a vorof H e nry B l a ke a s t o the ne gl i ge nc e c l a i m a ga i ns thi m on the gr ound tha the w a s pe r f

or m i ng a di s c r e t i ona ry f unc t i on a nd thus e nj oy e d s ove r e i gnTh emag istratejudg edenie d judgment a s a matter o f l aw at th at timeon c e rt ain c laims 3 ag ainst one def

endant, but then grante d judgment of a matter of law in fa

vor of that remaining defendant at the c lose of the de fensecase . 6 i m m u n i ty. 3 O n appe a l , W or thi ngt on a r gue s tha tthe m a gi s tr a t e j udge e rr e d i n gr a nt i ng j udgm e nta s a m a tt e rof l a w i n f a vorof the B oa r d a s t o the F our t e e nth A m e ndm e nt c l a i m a n d i n f

a v o ro f Bl a k e a s t o th e s t a t e l a w n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m. I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW I n r e vi e w i ng a gr a ntof

j udgm e nta s a m a tt e rof l a w , thi s C our tappl i e s the sam e st an d ard as th e d i stri ctco u rto r m ag i strat e j u d g e. P i ck ettv . T yso n F resh M ea t s, Inc. , 42 0 F . 3d 12 72 , 12 78 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). Judg m entas a m att erof l aw shou l d b e gra nt ed “ w hen the pl ai nt i ff pres ent s no l egal l y s uffi ci entevi dent i ary ba s i s f ora r e a s onabl e j ury t o f i nd f orhi m on a m a t e r i a l e l e m e ntof hi s c a us e of ac t i on . ” I d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). I I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . F ou rt ee n th A m en d m en t C l ai m A ga i n st th e B oa rd W or thi ngt on f

i r s ta r gue s tha tthe m a gi s tr a t e j udge e rr e d i n gr a nt i ng j udgm e nti n f

a vorof the B oa r d on he rF our t e e nth A m e ndm e ntC l a i m , br ought p u rsu an tt o § 1 9 8 3 . S p eci fi cal l y, W o rth i n g t o n arg u es th atJ. W . w as assau l t ed as a resu l to f th e B o ard ’ s p o l i cy o f h av i n g o n l y o n e ad u l t , th e b u s d ri v er, su p erv i se7

I T P C s tu d e n ts o n th e b u s , n o tw ith s ta n d in g th a t th e s tu d e n ts n e e d e d c o n s ta n t a d u lt s u p e r v is io n . M uni c i pa l e nt i t i e s , s uc h a s the B oa r d, c a nnotbe he l d l i abl e on a the ory of r e s p o n d e a t s u p e r io r . S a u ls v . P ie r c e C o u n ty S c h . D is t., 3 9 9 F .3 d 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2005) . R a the r , t o i m pos e l i abi l i ty on a m uni c i pa l gove rnm e ntunde r§ 1983,

“ the pl a i nt i f

f m us ti de nt i f

y a m uni c i pa l ‘ pol i c y ’ or‘ c us t om ’ c a us i ng the depri vat i on of fe dera l ri gh t s. ” I d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). A s the S up re m e C ou rthas e xpl a i ne d, L oc a t i ng a “ pol i c y ” e ns ur e s tha ta m uni c i pa l i ty i s he l d l i abl e o n l y f or tho se depri vat i on s r es ul t i ng fr om the deci si on s of i t s d u ly const i tut ed le g is la tiv e b o d y o ro f

th o s e o f f ic ia ls w h o s e a c t s m a y f a ir ly b e s a id to be thos e of

the m uni c i pa l i ty . S i m i l a r l y , a n a c tpe r f or m e d pur s ua ntt o a “c u s to m ” th a t h a s n o t b e e n f o r m a lly ap p r o v e d b y a n ap p r o p r ia te deci s i onm a ke rm a y f

a i r l y s ubj e c ta m uni c i pa l i ty t o l i abi l i ty on the theory thatth e re lev antprac t i ce i s s o w i despre ad as t o h ave the force o f la w . B d . o f C o m m ’r s o f

B ry a n C o u n ty v . B r o w n , 5 2 0 U .S . 3 9 7 , 4 0 3 - 0 4 , 1 1 7 S . C t. 13 82 , 13 88 (199 7) (i nt ernal ci t at i on s om i tt ed). F urther, “ i ti s notenou gh for a§ 19 83 pl ai nt i ff

m er el y t o i dent i fy cond uctprop er l y a ttri bu t abl e t o the m un i ci pal i ty. ” I d. a t404, 117 S . C t . a t1388. I ns t e a d, the pl a i nt i f f m us ta l s o de m ons tr a t e tha tthe m un i ci pal i ty’ s “ del i bera t e c on du ct ” w as the “ m ov i ng forc e” behi nd the i nj ury al l eged. Id. “ T hati s, a pl ai nt i ff m ustshow thatthe m un i ci pal ac t i on w as t aken w i th the r e qui s i t e de gr e e of c ul pabi l i ty a nd m us tde m ons tr a t e a di r e c tc a us a l l i nk8

b e tw e e n th e m u n ic ip a l a c tio n a n d th e d e p r iv a tio n o f f e d e r a l r ig h ts .” I d . A s th is C ou rthas pre vi ou sl y e xp l ai ned, a pl ai nt i ff m ustshow thatthe m un i ci pal ac t i on w as t aken w i th “ ‘ del i bera t e i nd i ff er ence ’ t o i t s kno w n o r obv i ou s c on se qu ence s. ” D a vi s v. D e ka l b C ounty S c h. D i s t . , 233 F . 3d 1367, 1375- 76 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . W e n o t e a tth e o u t s e tth a tth e Bo a r d c o u l d b e l i ab l e o n l y i f i to w e d s o me d u ty to p r o te c t J .W . f

r o m th ir d - p a r ty a s s a u lts . S e e W y k e v . P o lk C o u n ty S c h . B d ., 129 F . 3d 560, 568- 69 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . “ [ N ] othi ng i n the l a ngua ge of the D ue P r oc e s s C l a us e i t s e l f

r e qui r e s the S t a t e t o pr ot e c tthe l i f e , l i be r ty , a nd pr ope r ty of its c itiz e n s a g a in s t in v a s io n b y p r iv a te a c to r s .” D e S h a n e y v . W in n e b a g o C o u n ty D ep’ t . of S oc. S ervs. , 48 9 U . S . 18 9, 19 5, 10 9 S . C t . 99 8, 10 03 (198 9). R ather,

“ [t ] h e C l au se i s p h rased as a l i m i t at i o n o n th e S t at e’ s p o w er t o act , n o tas a g u a r a n te e o f

c e r ta in m in im u m le v e ls o f s a f e ty a n d s e c u r ity ,” a n d o n ly “in c e r ta in l i m i t e d c i r c um s t a nc e s [ doe s ] the C ons t i tut i on i m pos e [ ] upon the S t a t e a f f i r m a t i ve dut i e s of c a r e a nd pr ot e c t i on w i th r e s pe c tt o pa r t i c ul a ri ndi vi dua l s . ” I d. a t195, 1 9 8 , 1 0 9 S . C t. a t 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 4 . T h o s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s e x is t w h e r e th e S ta te a c ts to re stra i n an i nd i vi du al ’ s per sonal l i berty a nd abi l i ty t o sel f- prot ec t , such as w here the i nd i vi du al i s i ncar ce ra t ed or i nst i tut i on al i ze d. Id. at19 8-20 0, 10 9 S . C t . at 1004- 05.On this issue, W orthington relies primarily on Teague v. Te x . City

Indep. Sch. Dist., 348 4 F.Supp. 2d 785 (S.D. Tex. 2004), in which the district cour t denied a motion to dismiss a § 1983 c laim re latingto a

n in c ident in which a

student withDo wn ’sSy

nd ro mealle g e dly

wa s se xually assaulted by

another student in the school restroom. How ever , the district court in Teague subsequently

vacated its prior order

in part and grante d the school board’s motion for summary judgment, concludingthat no special relationship exis ted betwe en the sc hool board a nd the special education student to createa duty on the par

t of the board to protect the student f rom the all e g e d in c ide nt. T e agu ev . T e x. Ci ty In d ep . Sc h . D is t. , 3 8 6 F . Su p p . 2 d 8 9 3 , 8 9 6 ( S. D . T e x. 2005). 9 T hi s C our tha s pr e vi ous l y e xpl a i ne d tha tpubl i c s c hool s ge ne r a l l y do not h a v e th e r e q u is ite le v e l o f c o n tr o l o v e rc h ild r e n to g iv e r is e to a c o n s titu tio n a l d u ty t o p ro t ectth em fro m th i rd -p arty act o rs. S ee W yk e, 1 2 9 F . 3 d at5 6 9 ; see al so V e rnoni a S c h. D i s t . 47J v. A c t on, 515 U . S . 646, 654, 115 S . C t . 2386, 2392 ( 1995) (“ [W ] e do n ot , of course , sugg es tthatpu bl i c s choo l s a s ageneral m att erhave such a d e g r e e o f

c o n tr o l o v e rc h ild r e n a s to g iv e r is e to a c o n s titu tio n a l ‘d u ty to p r o te c t .

. . . ’ ”) (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). “ B y m andat i ng sc ho ol att endance, the st at e s i m pl y does no tre stri cta s tud ent ’ s l i berty i n the sa m e s ense thati tdo es w hen i ti ncar ce ra t es pri soners or w hen i tcom m i t s m ent al pat i ent s i nv ol un t ar i l y. ” W yke, 12 9 F . 3d at 5 6 9 . N e v e r th e le s s , W o r th in g to n a r g u e s th a t J .W . w a s in a “s p e c ia l r e la tio n s h ip ” to th e S ta te b e c a u s e h e w a s f o r c e d to a tte n d a s p e c ia l s c h o o l f o rc h ild r e n w ith l ea rni ng di sabi l i t i es and b ehavi oral prob l em s, forc ed t o ri de the bu s, and suffe re d f r om know n m e nt a l , e m ot i ona l , a nd be ha vi or a l di s abi l i t i e s m a ki ng hi m de pe nde nt on the B oard for s af

ety. W e do n otbel i eve thatthese fa ct ors c re at ed a s peci al rel at i o n sh i p o r a d u ty o n th e p arto f th e B o ard t o p ro t ectJ. W . fro m th i rd p art i es. 410

T hus , e ve n i f

the B oa r d a c t e d w i th de l i be r a t e i ndi f f e r e nc e , the r e w a s no c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i on. E ve n a s s um i ng the B oa r d w a s obl i ga t e d t o pr ot e c tJ . W . , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge n e v e r th e le s s p r o p e r ly d e te r m in e d th a t th e B o a r d w a s n o t d e lib e r a te ly in d if f e r e n t to J . W . ’ s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s . W or thi ngt on a l l e ge s tha tthe B oa r d ha d a pol i c y of tr a n s p o r tin g tr o u b le d I T P C s tu d e n ts w ith n o s u p e r v is io n o th e rth a n th e b u s d r iv e r . S he as se rt s thatthe B oard’ s pol i cy w as t o p l ac e a i des, i n add i t i on t o the bu s dri ver, o n b u s e s o n l y w h e n s tu d e n t s w i th p h y s i c a l d i s ab i l i t i e s w e r e o n b o a r d . Th u s , I TPC s tu d e n ts s u c h a s J .W . a n d J .M . w e r e u n d e rth e s o le s u p e r v is io n o f th e b u s d r iv e r . W orthi ng t on ar gu es thatthe IT P C stud ent s e xh i bi t ed em ot i on al and b ehavi oral prob l em s, and speci fi ca l l y thatJ. M . ’ s i nd i vi du al i ze d edu ca t i on pl an (“ IE P ”) no t ed th ath e w as sn eak y, ag g ressi v e, m ad e i n ap p ro p ri at e co m m en t s t o fem al e stu d en t s, a nd ne e de d t o be s upe r vi s e d a ta l l t i m e s . A s ar e s ul t , W or thi ngt on a r gue s tha tby tr a ns por t i ng the I T P C s tude nt s on the bus w i th onl y the s upe r vi s i on of the bus dr i ve r , w hos e m a i n f

oc us w a s on dr i vi ng r a the rtha n s upe r vi s i ng the c onduc tof the s tude nt s , the B oa r d pl a c e d I T P C s tude nt s s uc h a s J . W . i n a vul ne r abl e pos i t i on a nd f a i l e d t o pr ot e c tthe m f

r om f or e s e e abl e ha r m i nf

l i c t e d by othe rs tude nt s . S he a r gue s tha tthe B oa r d w a s a w a r e of the ne e d f

ora s e c ond a dul tt o s upe r vi s e the tro u b l ed IT P C stu d en t s, as ev i d en ced b y th e IT P C p o l i cy th ateach cl assro o m m u stIti s w o rthn o t i n gth atth i s p o l i c y w a s anIT P C p o l i c y an d n o ta B o ard p o l i c y. 5 11 ha ve a n a i de a s w e l l a s a t e a c he rpr e s e nta ta l l t i m e s t o m oni t orthe s tude nt s dur i ng cl as s w hen the t ea cheri s w orki ng w i th an i nd i vi du al stud entor w hen the t ea cher mu s tl e a v e th e r o o m. 5 W o rth in g to n ’s ar g u m en t i s n o t p er su as iv e. F irst, d es p it e W o rth in g to n ’s cont ent i on s, the evi dence attri al w as thatthe det erm i nat i on of w hether t o p l ac e a n a i de on the bus w a s m a de notby the B oa r d, butby the I E P c om m i tt e e ; tha ta n a i de c oul d ha ve be e n pl a c e d on the bus i f a ny of the s tude nt s ’ I E P s s o r e c om m e nde d; a n d th a t a n a id e c o u ld b e r e q u e s te d in a n y s tu d e n t’s I E P , n o t ju s t a p h y s ic a lly di s abl e d s tude nt ’ s I E P . I n a ddi t i on, the r e w a s no e vi de nc e t o e s t abl i s h a c us t om of fa i l i ng t o p rovi de ai des w hen recom m ended b y I E P s. T here w as no ai de on bo ar d J. W . ’ s bus because non e of the stud ent s’ IE P s s o rec om m ended, no tbecause a B oard po l i cy prec l ud ed the supervi si on of an ai de. I n a n y e v e n t , e v e n i f

th e Bo a r d d i d h a v e a p o l i c y o f tr a n s p o r t i n g I TPC s tu d e n ts u n d e rth e s o le s u p e r v is io n o f th e b u s d r iv e r , W o r th in g to n h a s f a ile d to s how tha ts uc h a pol i c y w a s a “ m ovi ng f or c e ” be hi nd the a l l e ge d a s s a ul t . T he a l l e ge d a s s a ul tw a s c om m i tt e d by a nothe rs tude nton the bus , a nd nota n a c t orof the sc ho ol di stri ct . T here i s no evi dence thatJ. W . soug htthe hel p o f the bu s dri ver orothe rw i s e di d a ny thi ng t o ge tthe a tt e nt i on of the bus dr i ve r . F ur the r , w hi l e the12

B o a r d p e rh ap s c o u ld h a v e im p le m e n te d p o lic ie s th a t m ig h t h a v e p r o te c te d J .W . fr om the as saul t , such as pl ac i ng addi t i on al supervi sors on the bu s, the al l eged a s s a ul tc e r t a i nl y w a s nota “ know n orobvi ous c ons e que nc e ” of the f a i l ur e t o t a ke s u c h a c tio n . S e e D a v is , 2 3 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 7 5 - 7 6 . W h ile J .M . w a s k n o w n to e x h ib it ce rt ai n b ehavi oral prob l em s, W orthi ng t on po i nt s t o n o evi dence thatJ. M . had p r e v io u s ly c o m m itte d a s e x u a l a s s a u lt o rw a s a k n o w n th r e a t to d o s o . N o ris I T P C ’ s pol i c y of

pl a c i ng a n a i de i n e a c h c l a s s r oom r e l e va ntt o thi s c a s e . A l though i tm a y be i de a l t o pl a c e a s e c ond a dul ti n the c l a s s r oom t o f a c i l i t a t e the l e a rni ng p r o c e s s , th a t p o lic y in n o w a y s u g g e s ts th a t s tu d e n ts w o u ld b e in g r a v e d a n g e rif s u p e r v is e d b y o n ly o n e a d u lt o n th e b u s to a n d f r o m s c h o o l. W orthi ng t on al so ar gu es thatthe B oard fai l ed t o requi re bu s dri vers such as H e n ry B la k e to b e tr a in e d ab o u t th e p r o p e rc a r e f o rs p e c ia l e d u c a tio n s tu d e n ts . T hi s a r gum e nta l s o i s una va i l i ng. F i r s t , the e vi de nc e a ttr i a l i ndi c a t e d tha tbus dr i ve r s di d r e c e i ve tr a i ni ng on de a l i ng w i th s pe c i a l e duc a t i on s tude nt s . I n a ny e v e n t, W o r th in g to n h a s f a ile d to s h o w a c a u s a l c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n a n y f a ilu r e to tr a in b u s d r iv e r s a n d th e a lle g e d a s s a u lt. T he a l l e ge d a s s a ul t( i f

i toc c urr e d) i s unf

ortuna t e , a nd W or thi ngt on’ s outr a ge ath er so n ’ s ab u se i s cert ai n l y j u st i fi ed . H o w ev er, w h en th e al l eg ed ab u se occurre d, her s on w as un der the supervi si on of the bu s dri ver. W hi l e that13

s upe r vi s i on a l l e ge dl y ul t i m a t e l y f a i l e d t o pr e ve ntthe ha r m , ne i the rthe f a l l i bi l i ty of th e s u p e r v is o rn o rth e f

a ilu r e to p r o v id e a s e c o n d s u p e r v is o ra m o u n ts to d e lib e r a te i ndi f f e r e nc e . A s thi s C our tha s pr e vi ous l y e xpl a i ne d, “ a s c hool boa r d i s not d e lib e r a te ly in d if

f e r e n t s im p ly b e c a u s e th e m e a s u r e s it ta k e s a r e u ltim a te ly i neff ec t i ve . . . . ” S aul s, 39 9 F . 3d at12 85 (c i t i ng D avi s, 23 3 F . 3d at13 75 ) ( other ci t at i on om i tt ed). T hu s, the m agi stra t e j ud ge prop er l y det erm i ned thatno B oard p o lic y w a s th e m o v in g f o r c e b e h in d th e a lle g e d a s s a u lt. B . N e g lig e n c e C la im A g a in s t B la ke W or thi ngt on ne xtc l a i m s tha tthe m a gi s tr a t e j udge e rr e d i n gr a nt i ng j udgm e nta s a m a tt e rof l a w i n f a vorof B l a ke on he rne gl i ge nc e c l a i m . T he m agi stra t e j ud ge concl ud ed thatB l ake w as ent i t l ed t o st at e- agenti m m un i ty und er A l abam a l aw . W e a gree . P ur s ua ntt o A r t i c l e I , § 14 of the A l aba m a C ons t i tut i on, “ the S t a t e of A l aba m a s ha l l ne ve rbe m a de a de f e nda nti n a ny c our tof

l a w ore qui ty . ” T he A l abam a S up re m e C ou rthas e xt ended t hi s s ov er ei gn i m m un i ty t o m un i ci pal bo ar ds of educat i on , as l ocal agenci es of the st at e, and t o a pers on w ho ac t s a s a n a ge ntof s uc h a boa r d i f

the a c tw a s c om m i tt e d w hi l e tha tpe r s on w a s pe r f or m i ng c e r ta in ty p e s o f

d u tie s th a t a r e “d is c r e tio n a ry ” o rr e q u ir e th e e x e r c is e o f ju d g m e n t. S e e C a rr ol l v. H a m m e tt , 744 S o. 2d 906, 910- 11 ( A l a . 1999) ( s t a t i ng tha t“ a pe r s on14

w ho a c t s a s a n a ge ntof

a c ounty boa r d of

e duc a t i on s ha r e s i n the S t a t e ’ s s ove r e i gn i m m un i ty i f the ac tcom pl ai ned o f w as com m i tt ed w hi l e thatpers on w as perf orm i ng a di sc re t i on ary a ct ” a nd defi ni ng a “ di sc re t i on ary” ac tas on e that

“ re qu i re s e xerc i se i n j ud gm entand cho i ce and i nv ol ves w hati s j ustand p roper u n d e rth e c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . H i s t or i c a l l y , the A l aba m a S upr e m e C our tha s he l d r e pe a t e dl y tha tthe supervi si on of stud ent s i s a n acti nv ol vi ng di sc re t i on and j ud gm ent , and that pers on s e ng aged i n such sup ervi si on ar e e nt i t l ed t o i m m un i ty f rom negl i gence s ui t s . S e e , e . g. , C a rr ol l , 744 S o. 2d a t911 ( “ I ti s w e l l e s t abl i s he d tha tthe s upe r vi s i on of

s tude nt s i s a di s c r e t i ona ry f unc t i on. ” ) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ; K r oge rv. D av i s, 6 2 2 S o . 2 d 3 0 3 , 3 0 4 (A l a. 1 9 9 3 ) (“ In su p erv i si n g th e stu d en t s d u ri n g recess, the defendantt ea cher s w er e per form i ng a di sc re t i on ary f un ct i on and are there fore i m m une f

r om l i abi l i ty . ” ) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ; C oy l e v. H a rpe r , 622 S o. 2d 302, 303 (A l a. 19 93 ) ( ho l di ng thatt ea cherw ho w as m on i t ori ng the hal l s w hen stud entw as i nj ured i n h ercl as sr oo m w as perf orm i ng a di sc re t i on ary f un ct i on and there fore e n title d to im m u n ity ) . I n 2000, the A l aba m a S upr e m e C our tr e s t a t e d the rul e of s t a t e - a ge nt im m u n ity , e s tab lis h in g th a t th e a g e n t is e n title d to im m u n ity w h e n th e c la im is ba s e d on c e r t a i n c a t e gor i e s of dut i e s , i nc l udi ng w he r e the a ge nti s “ e xe r c i s i ng15

ju d g m e n t in th e d is c h a r g e o f d u tie s im p o s e d b y s ta tu te , ru le , o rr e g u la tio n in r e l e a s i ng pr i s one r s , c ouns e l i ng orr e l e a s i ng pe r s ons of uns ound m i nd, ore duc a t i ng s tu d e n ts .” E x p a r te C r a n m a n , 7 9 2 S o . 2 d 3 9 2 , 4 0 5 ( A la . 2 0 0 0 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T h e A lab a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s s in c e g r a n te d im m u n ity n o t o n ly to te a c h e r s in s c h o o l, b u t a ls o to p e r s o n s s u p e r v is in g o th e rs c h o o l- r e la te d a c tiv itie s . F ore xa m pl e , i n 2003, the A l aba m a S upr e m e C ourtgr a nt e d i m m uni ty t o a hi gh s c hool ba s e ba l l c oa c h w he r e a s tude nta l l e ge d the c oa c h w a s ne gl i ge nti n a l l ow i ng p la y e r s to s ta n d w ith o u t h e lm e ts in a n a r e a w h e r e th e y c o u ld b e h it b y b a tte d b a lls . E x p art e N al l , 87 9 S o. 2d 54 1, 54 5-46 (A l a. 20 03 ). T he A l abam a S up re m e C ou rt st at ed that“ i ti s und i sput ed that[the coaches ] , i n con du ct i ng the base bal l prac t i ce se ss i on , w er e di sc hargi ng thei r dut i es i n edu ca t i ng stud ent s. ” I d. at54 5. In a ddi t i on, i n E x pa r t e B l a nke ns hi p, 806 S o. 2d 1186, 1186- 90 ( A l a . 2000) , the A l aba m a S upr e m e C our tgr a nt e d s t a t e - a ge nti m m uni ty t o a ba nd di r e c t ora nd s c hool pr i nc i pa l i n a s ui tby a m i norba nd m e m be r ’ s m othe ra l l e gi ng tha tthe defe nd ant s negl i gent l y s up ervi se d h erdaug ht erby al l ow i ng her t o l ea ve af t eran o u t- o f - to w n b a n d tr ip w ith h e ro ld e rb o y f r ie n d , r e s u ltin g in h e rs ta tu to ry r ap e . N e i the rthe m i nornorthe boy f r i e nd w a s a s tude nta tthe hi gh s c hool , y e tthe ba nd di r e c t or ’ s s upe r vi s i on of the m i norw a s de e m e d t o f a l l w i thi n the e xc e pt i on f or e xe r c i s i ng di s c r e t i on i n e duc a t i ng s tude nt s . I d. a t1190.W o rth i n gt o nargu e s th atB l ak e ’ s s u p e r v i s i o nw a s m i n i s t e ri alan d n o tdi s c re t i o n ar

y, 6 relying on one1982 Alabama Supreme Court ca se, De Stafney v. Univ. of Ala., 413 So. 2d 391 (A l a. 1 9 8 1 ), i nwh i chth e c o urtd en i edi mmun i ty t o a d aycare wo rk er

wh o wa s s u

p erv i s i n g a toddler when th etoddler w a s in jure d. Ho wever, in t

hat c a se , th eda

y c arewo rke r w a s n ot s imp ly su perv isingthec hil d; s hehad ac tiv e ly plac e d th ec hil d o n th ee quipm e nt f ro m which th ec hil d fe ll, incur ringinj urie s. In a

ny e vent, a s d e sc ribe d a

bo ve , th egre at w e ight o f a uth ority establishes that the super

vision of children involves the e x erc ise of discretion and judgment. Thus , w ere

je c t th is a rgument. 16 H e r e , W o r th in g to n ’s c la im a g a in s t H e n ry B la k e a r is e s o u t o f h is c o n d u c t in s u p e r v is in g th e I T P C s tu d e n ts w h ile d r iv in g th e m to th e irb u s s to p s . H is perf orm ance of thatt as k i nv ol ved the exerc i se of j ud gm enti n sup ervi si ng pu bl i ce duc a t i on s tude nt s w hi l e dr i vi ng the bus . T hus , B l a ke w a s “ e xe r c i s i ng j udgm e nt 6 i n the di s c ha r ge of

dut i e s i m pos e d by s t a tut e , rul e , orr e gul a t i on i n . . . e duc a t i ng s tude nt s ” a nd i s e nt i t l e d t o i m m uni ty unde rA l aba m a l a w . E x pa r t e C r a nm a n, 792 S o . 2 d a t 4 0 5 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . W e a c k n o w le d g e th a t in H o r to n v . B r ile y , 7 9 2 S o . 2 d 4 3 2 , 4 3 4 ( A la . C t. A pp s. , 20 01 ), the A l abam a C ou rtof A pp ea l s app l i ed C ra nm an and con cl ud ed that a bus dri ver w as no tent i t l ed t o st at e- agenti m m un i ty w i th res pectt o a cl ai m base d on a vehi cul arac ci dent . In thatcont ext , the C ou rtof A pp ea l s not ed that

“ c ha r a c t e r i z i ng a s a di s c r e t i ona ry f unc t i on c onduc tr e m ot e f r om the e xe c ut i on of gove rnm e nt a l pol i c y w oul d pe rpe tua t e a n e rr one ous c ons truc t i on of the C o n s titu tio n .” I d . ( q u o tin g C r a n m a n , 7 9 2 S o . 2 d a t 4 0 4 ) ( b r a c k e ts a n d e llip s is o m itte d ) . H o w e v e r , H o r to n is in ap p lic ab le h e r e b e c a u s e th e c o n d u c t a t is s u e isWe n otethat in Ex pa rt eMc Who rt e r, 88 0 So . 2 d 1 11 6, 11 17 (A la . 2 00 3) , th eAl a bama 7 Supreme Court did grant state- ag ent immunity to a deputy

for a vehicular acc ident that occur

red wh e nh ew a s o nd

uty. 17 ent i re l y di ff

er ent . H er e, the cond uctati ss ue i s notthe dri vi ng of sc ho ol chi l dren butthe s upe r vi s i on of

s tude nt s i n the publ i c e duc a t i on s y s t e m . W hi l e the dr i vi ng o f s c h o o lc h ild r e n m a y b e “r e m o te f r o m th e e x e c u tio n o f

g o v e rn m e n ta l p o lic y ,” A l aba m a S upr e m e C our tpr e c e de ntc l e a r l y i ndi c a t e s tha tthe s upe r vi s i on of c hi l dr e n i n the publ i c e duc a t i on s y s t e m i s e xa c t l y the s or tof c onduc tpr ot e c t e d by st at e- agenti m m un i ty. T hu s, H ort on do es no taf fe ctB l ake’ s e nt i t l em entt o st at e- 7 a g e n t im m u n ity a s th is c a s e d o e s n o t in v o lv e a v e h ic u la ra c c id e n t. I n a ny e ve nt , e ve n i f

the A l aba m a S upr e m e C our tw e r e t o de c i de tha tthe su p erv i si o n o f stu d en t s b y b u s d ri v ers i s n o tp ro t ect ed b y st at e-ag en ti m m u n i ty, W orthi ng t on has poi nt ed t o n o evi dence thatB l ake w as negl i gent . A s di sc usse d p re v io u sly, th er e is n o in d icatio n th at eith erstu d en t d id an yth in g to g et B lak e’s a tte n tio n , a n d h e w a s d r iv in g th e b u s a t th e s a m e tim e h e w a s s u p e r v is in g th e m . F urther, as di sc usse d p re vi ou sl y, W orthi ng t on po i nt s t o n o evi dence thatJ. M . had p rev i o u sl y co m m i tt ed a sex u al assau l to r w as a k n o w n th reatt o d o so , m u ch l ess th a tB l a k e , a s u b s t i tu t e b u s d r i v e r , w a s a w a r e o rs h o u l d h a v e b e e n a w a r e th a tJ . M. p o s e d s u c h a r is k . A s s u m in g th e a lle g e d in c id e n t o c c u rr e d , th e m e r e f a c t th a t J .W . w as as saul t ed w hi l e B l ake w as dri vi ng the bu s does notes t abl i sh thatB l ake w as18

n e g lig e n t in s u p e rv is in g th e s tu d e n ts . T h u s , th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e d id n o t e rrin g r a n tin g ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte ro f la w in f a v o ro f B la k e . I V . CONCL US I ON F o r th e fo reg o i n g reaso n s, th e m ag i strat e j u d g e’ s g ran to f j u d g m en tas a m a tt e rof l a w i n f a vorof the de f e nda nt s i s a f

f i r m e d. AF F I RME D.