Federal district court in Ohio dismisses claims of estate and parents regarding bullying-related suicide
Mohat v. Mentor Exempted Village Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 09-688 (Jun. 1, 2011)
Abstract: A federal district court in Ohio has granted a school district’s motion to dismiss a suit brought by the estate and parents of a student who committed suicide after being bullied by classmates. It concluded that the estate’s claims were time-barred because a personal representative of the estate was not appointed until the statute of limitations on the claims had run.
The court also concluded that the parents had failed to state a valid substantive due process claim based on the allegation that the school failed to end the bullying or prevent the student’s suicide. It likewise found no valid claim of failure to train because there was no violation of a constitutional right identified. The court also dismissed the Title IX claim, noting the parents had conceded that they could not bring a claim.
The court, therefore, dismissed all federal claims with prejudice, but dismissed the state claims without prejudice allowing the estate and the parents the opportunity to refile in state court.
Facts/Issues: Following the suicide of their son, Eric, the Mohats filed suit against Mentor Exempted Village School District Board of Education (MBOE) on behalf of themselves and Eric’s estate. Because the estate was mistakenly opened in a county where Eric did not reside at the time of his death, there was no party with standing to bring a suit on behalf of the estate. By the time Eric’s mother, Janis, was named as personal representative of the estate, the statute of limitations on any legal claims had run. MBOE sought to dismiss the estate’s claims on the grounds that they were time-barred because the statute of limitations had expired.
The parents argued that the estate’s claim should be allowed to proceed on the merits because under Ohio law someone may file suit on behalf of the estate as a “place holder” to avoid the claim being barred by the statute of limitations, so long as an estate is formed and a personal representative is appointed prior to the resolution of the action. Faced with a question of state law, the district court certified that question to the Ohio Supreme Court, which granted review but later dismissed the case.
Ruling/Rationale: Addressing the question without benefit of the Ohio high court’s wisdom, the district court noted that there was some support in Ohio law for allowing the appointment of a proper administrator of an estate to relate back to the date of the filing of complaint in order to establish standing and avoid the statute of limitation’s time bar.
It concluded, however, that the language in state law giving an estate administrator authority to settle claims made by the estate either prior to or after legal action had been commenced ”does not provide any basis for allowing her to avoid the statute of limitations . . . .” It, therefore, held that because “the estate itself was not properly established and no duly appointed representative existed prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the estate’s claims are barred under the two year statute of limitations.”
The district court concluded that the parents’ due process claims were without merit, as they failed to establish that a school district’s acts or omissions violated a constitutional right. As a result, it found that they had failed to state a valid cause of action under section 1983.
The parents’ substantive due process claim asserted that the school, acting under the color of state law, deprived them of their right to familial association, which is a liberty interest under the due process clause. Noting that nothing in the Due Process Clause itself requires the government to protect citizens from invasions of due process rights by private actors, the court stated the general rule: “it is not a constitutional violation for a state actor to … fail to rescue those in need.” The two exceptions to this rule arise when: (1) the state has custody of the person in need or some other “special relationship” that heightens their responsibility to care for a particular citizen; or (2) when a state actor acts affirmatively to create or greatly increases the risk of harm to its citizens.
In this case, neither exception was met. There was no allegation that the student was in state custody or had a “special relationship” with the school. “Therefore,” said the court, “although it is certainly reasonable for parents to expect that the school will do its best to protect their children while they are under the school’s supervision, the law does not elevate this expectation to a constitutional guarantee.” Similarly, there was no allegation that the school had taken any action to create or increase the risk to the student. Instead, the complaint alleged that the school failed to intercede when other students were bullying Eric, contributing to or causing his decision to commit suicide. “Both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit have repeatedly held that a failure to act, even with knowledge that a risk of harm may exist without state intervention, is not enough to confer liability under the Fourteenth Amendment,” explained the court. “[T]he school had no constitutional duty to take affirmative action to protect Eric from harm imposed by other students through bullying and emotional and physical harassment, nor did it have a constitutional duty to take affirmative action to prevent the ultimate harm he imposed upon himself through his suicide.”
Regarding the failure to train claim, the court found that the MBOE could be liable only if the parents asserted the deprivation of a constitutional right, and that MBOE is responsible for the violation because of an official policy or custom. Re-asserting that the school’s failure to stop other students or Eric himself from harming him does not rise to a constitutional violation, the court further explained that the parents had not identified any constitutional rights that were violated because of the alleged lack of policy on bullying. In addition, MBOE’s alleged inaction could not lead to municipal liability because the complaint did not allege that MBOE had any prior notice or constructive notice of the alleged harassment, or that the bullying would likely lead Eric to commit suicide; nor was there an allegation that any action by the Board could have prevented Eric from being bullied, or ultimately from deciding to commit suicide.
In addition, the parents acknowledged that they were not a proper party to bring a Title IX claim, so that claim was dismissed.
Mohat v. Mentor Exempted Village Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 09-688 (Jun. 1, 2011)
[Editor's Note: In March 2011, the Columbus Dispatch reported that the Ohio Supreme Court had declined to review the question certified to it by the federal district court. In a 7-0 opinion, the justices said the case was “improvidently accepted for review,” meaning they should not have agreed to hear it in the first place. A summary of the article, with links to background on the Mohats' suit, is available below.]
