Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
INITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
NORTHERNDISTRICTOF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ROSSIWADE $
$
Plaintiff, $
$
V S. $
$ NO. 3-09-CV-0346-O
CARROLLTON-FARMERSBRANCH $
INDEPENDENTSCHOOLDISTRICT. $
ET AL. $
$
Defendants. $
This casehas been referred to the United Statesmagistratejudge for pretrial management
pursuantto 28 U.S.C. $ 636(b)anda standingorderof referencefrom the district court. The findings
I.
plaintiff tendered a complaint to the district clerk and filed an application to proceed in forma
' Plaintiffpurports to bring her claimsunderTitle VII ofthe Civil RightsAct of 1964("Title VII"), as amended,42
U.S.C. g 2000e, et seq. (SeeMag. J. Interrog. #l(a)). However, plaintiff lacks standingto bring a Title VII action
becauseshe does not have an employer-employeerelationship with any of the defendants. See, e.g. Diggs v. Hatis
Hospital-Methodist,Lnc.,847 F.2d 270,272 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 394(1988). Becauseplaintiff is
proceedingpro se,the court construesher complaintand interrogatoryanswersas assertinga civil rights claim under
42 U.S.C. $ 1983, which provides a civil remedy for constitutional violations by state actors, including school
administrators. SeeMayorga Santamaria ex rel. Doe Children I-3 v. Dallas Indep. Sch. D,s/., No. 3-06'CY'0692-L,
2006 WL 3350194at *39 CN.D.Tex. Nov. 16,2006).
lacks the funds necessaryto prosecutethis action, the court granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and allowed the complaint to be filed. Two setsof written interrogatoriesthen were sent
to plaintiff in order to obtain additional information about the factual basis of her suit. Plaintiff
answeredthe interrogatorieson April 8, 2009 and June 8,2009. The court now determinesthat
plaintiffs equal protection claim against Walter Peterson, the principal of Bernice Freeman
II.
As best the court can decipher, plaintiff allegesthat Lisa Anderson, a teacher,refused to help her
her daughter low grades, and failed to punish another student for injuring her daughter--all on
accountof her daughter'srace. (Seeid. #1,8). Plaintiff further allegesthat she was harassedand
secretary.Specifically, plaintiff complainsthat thesedefendantswould not let her eat lunch with her
daughteron campus,pay for her daughter'sschoolpictures,or deliver a birthday gift to her daughter
asked for a copy of her leaseagreementas a condition of keeping her daughterin school, whereas
two Asian families and one white family were not required to produce their leaseagreements.(See
id. #l; Mag. J. Sec.Interrog.#3). Even thoughplaintiff had previouslygiven the administrationa
(3) seeksmonetaryreliefagainstadefendantwhoisimmunefrom
suchrelief.
28 U.S.C. g l9l5(e)(2)(B). In order to statea claim on which relief may be granted,the plaintiff
must plead "enoughfactsto statea claim to relief that is plausibleon its face." Bell Atlantic Corp.
Id.,I27 S.Ct.at1965.While
abovethespeculativelevel."
mustbeenoughtoraisearighttorelief
a complaint neednot contain detailed factual allegations,the plaintiff must allege more than labels
and conclusions. Id. at 1964-65. The court must acceptall well-pleaded facts as true and view the
allegationsin the light most favorableto the plaintiff. SeeIn re Katrino Canal BreachesLitig.,495
B.
The court initially obseryes that plaintiff cannot sue on behalf of her minor daughter.
Although a litigant hasthe right to proceedin federalcourt ashis or her own counsel,see28 U'S.C'
$ 1654,individuals who do not have a law licensemay not representother partieseven on a next
852354at * I (N.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2004),rec. adoptedin part,2004WL 1161373(N.D. Tex. May
practiceof law[.]"). Severalcourts,including at leasttwo judges in this district, have held that the
right to proceedpro se infederal court doesnot give non-lawyer parentsthe right to representtheir
1686508at *2 (N.D. Tex. Jun. I ,2007); Martin,2004 WL 852354at *l; seeqlso Collinsgruv.
Palmyra Bd. of Education,l6l F.3d 225,227 (3d Cir. 1998),abrog. on other grounds,127S.Ct.
153, I 54 ( 1OthCir. 1936). In light of this clear precedent,all claims brought by plaintiff on behalf
C.
Nor can plaintiff suethe unnamedschool secretary.The federalrules make no provision for
joining fictitious or unnameddefendantsin an action under a federal statute. See Vollmer v. Bowles,
No. 3-96-CV-0081-D, 1997WL 102476at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 1997),appeal dism'd,No. 97-
DelGuercio,24lF,2d480,482(9thCir. 1956).
10728(5thCir.$ept.22,1997),citingSigurdsonv.
Unless and until plaintiff is able to identi$ the unnamedsecretary,the marshalcannoteflbct service
*2
on this defendant.SeeStaritz v. Valdez,No.3-06-CY-1926-D,2007WL 1498285at (N.D. Tex.
D.
With respectto the claims brought by plaintiff on her own behalf, the court notesthat there
is no basis for imposing liability on CFBISD. In order to hold the school district liable for civil
$ lg83,plaintiffmustshowthattheunconstitutionalactsallegedly
rightsviolationsunder42U.S.C.
*4
alsoBuckleyv.Garlandlndep.Scft.Drsr.,No. 3-04-CV-1321-P,2005WL 2041964at (N.D. Tex.
Aug.23,2005) (applying Monell standardto civil rights claim againstschool district). Plaintiff
makes no such allegation. Instead,she contendsthat the conduct of the individual defendantswas
"keep abreast of the development of creative and innovative techniques in instruction and
goals. (SeeMag. J. Interrog.#7, citing Tpx. Epuc. CooE Atw. $$ 4.001 & 4.002). Not only has
plaintiff failed to statea claim againstCFBISD, but the failure to comply with statelaw doesnot give
on
rise to a civil rights claim againstthe individual defendants"unlessthe conductalso trespasses
federalconstitutionalsafeguards."Hernandezv.DuncanvilleIndep.Sch. Dist.,No.3-04-CV-2028-
BH,2005 WL32g3gg5at*2}(N.D.Tex.Dec.5,2005),quotingRamirezv.Ahn,843F.2d864,867
plaintiff must show that she "received treatment different from that received by similarly situated
individuals and that the unequal treatment stemmed from a discriminatory intent." Priester v.
LowndesCounty,354F.3d 4I4, 424 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,125 S.Ct. 153(2004);seealso Smith
v. Hamlin,No. 3-99-CV-0007-P,1999WL 1044600at *2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 17,1999), aff d sub nom.
answers,plaintiff statesthat two Asian women and one white woman were not required to produce
Interrog.#3).Thatallegation,togetherwithderogatorycommentsallegedlymadebyPetersonabout
African-Americans, (seeMag. J. Sec.Interrog. #4), aresufficient to enableplaintiff to prosecutean
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff should be allowed to prosecute her claim that Walter Peterson violated her
constitutional right to equal protection of the law by requiring that she provide a copy of her lease
agreementas a condition of keepingher daughterin school. All other claims shouldbe summarily
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner
provided by law. Any party may file written objectionsto the recommendationwithin 10 daysafter
being servedwith a copy. See28 U.S.C. $ 636(b)(l); Feo. R. Crv. P. 72(b). The failure to file
written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal
conclusions of the magistratejudge that are acceptedor adoptedby the district court, except upon
Cir. 1996).
DATED: June26.2009.
STATESMAGISTRATEJUDGE