W.D.Okla.: A school district’s alleged indifference to bullying complaints stated a 4A claim

“In light of Plaintiffs’ allegations, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts which allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the District maintains a policy of retaliating against parents who advocate for their children, in violation of the First Amendment, and invading their privacy, by calling DHS when parents do advocate on behalf of their children, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and, further, maintains a policy of being indifferent to reports of bullying, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims should not be dismissed against the District.” Roe v. John Doe, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168318 (W.D.Okla. Dec. 6, 2016).

Pro se plaintiff stated a claim for unlawful search and seizure and taking of his cash at the airport, and summary dismissal was error. The government’s forfeiture action was dismissed. Caldwell v. Fort Lauderdale Airport Task Force, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21933 (11th Cir. Dec. 9, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Forfeiture. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.