MOTION IN RESPONSE

PERSONA

(Plaintiff Pro Se)

ADDRESS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ALACHUA COUNTY DIVISION

PERSONA

Plaintiff,

vs.

PERSONA

Defendants

Case No.:____________

MOTION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S ORDER TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

MOTION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S ORDER TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

COMES NOW Plaintiff, PERSONA, Pro-se hereby files this Motion in Response to the Court’s Order to File Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint by making the following changes:

Removing Counts 1 and 2 thereof.
Providing the nexus requirement in counts 3, 4, 5, and 8 for the 42 U.S.C 1983 allegations.
Removing Count 7 thereof.
Amending Counts 9 and 10 thereof, to state the effects of Defendants’ actions with regards to Federal law.

Plaintiff has attached herein the Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff also seeks to seek this Court’s leave to change the venue of the case to a different location.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff had filed a Motion for a Restraining Order against Besty Boyle, a Defendant in this action. In the said Motion, Plaintiff alleged inter alia, that she was not comfortable having the said Defendant around her.

On or about August 19, 2021, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Motion on the ground that it was facially deficient. The Court also made notable observations regarding Plaintiff’s Complaint, and duly advised Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint.

ARGUMENTS

Amendment of the Complaint

Rules 15(a)(2) provides for amendments with the Court’s leave. There is a “strong liberality . . . in allowing amendments under Rule 15(a).” Bechtel v. Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 652 (3d Cir. 1989). It follows; Rule 15(a) should be liberally construed. Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986, 990 (5th Cir. 1981). Further, a “court may refuse a motion for leave to amend only in limited circumstances, such as when the amendment would cause undue delay; is offered in bad faith or with dilatory motive; or if the amendment is futile.” AT&T v. Marstan Indus. Inc., No. 93-2961, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8294 (E.D. Pa. 1994).

In the instant case, it would be in the interest of justice for the Court to grant Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint by making the said adjustments.

Change of Venue

“[T]he basic function of venue statutes is to set a fair and convenient location for trial.” Voit v. Madison Newspapers Inc., 116 Wis. 2d 217, 224, 341 N.W.2.d 693 (1984).

To support a motion for change of venue, the party must establish: (1) that venue is proper; (2) that the venue is one where the action might have been brought; and (3) that the transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the interests of justice. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 820 F.Supp. 503, 506 (C.D. Cal.1992).

Once venue is determined to be proper, courts evaluate the following factors to determine which venue is more convenient to the parties and the witnesses and will promote the interests of justice: (1) plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation with other claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. See Williams v. Bowman, 157 F.Supp.2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001).

The party seeking the transfer must also satisfy the Court’s jurisdiction requirements. In federal law, jurisdiction is attained in two ways: Personal Jurisdiction, and Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Personal Jurisdiction refers to the power of a federal court to hear and determine a lawsuit involving a defendant by virtue of the defendant having some contact with the place where the court is located. See International Shoe v Washington, 326 US 310 (1945). This means, either the Defendant lives in that State or conducts business in that State.

In Subject matter jurisdiction, the court must have jurisdiction over the dispute in the case. This means, there are specific cases that the federal courts hear. The two primary sources of the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts are diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally permits individuals to bring claims in federal court where the claim exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Federal question jurisdiction requires that the federal element appears on the face of a well-plead complaint, is a substantial component of the complainant’s claim, and is of significant federal interest. Federal question subject-matter jurisdiction is frequently derived from federal statutes granting a cause of action to parties who have suffered a particular injury. Furthermore, it is important to note that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides for supplemental jurisdiction in federal courts. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to adjudicate a claim over which it does not have independent subject-matter jurisdiction, on the basis that the claim is related to a claim over which the federal court does have independent jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, these premises considered, Plaintiff files the Second Amended Complaint, and requests this Court to grant leave to change the venue of the case.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: ______

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I, PERSONA, certified on this day of .2021, I deposited a true copy of the above to the Defendants by placing the documents with prepaid postage in the United States mailbox address to each person.

PERSONA

(Plaintiff Pro Se)

ADDRESS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ALACHUA COUNTY DIVISION

PERSONA

Plaintiff,

vs.

PERSONA

Defendants

Case No.: ___________

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Comes Now PERSONA (Proceeding Pro se, hereafter Plaintiff) who files this Second Amended against Defendants; PERSONAS (hereinafter individually Defendant, and jointly defendants).

INTRODUCTION

1. This cause of action arises from Defendants’ deliberately indifferent response to continuous and ongoing hostile school environment, and discrimination against Plaintiff and her two children C. G. WIMS AND C. J. WIMS (minors) who are African-Americans. Defendants’ failure to promptly and appropriately investigate and respond to the conducts alleged subjected Plaintiff to further harassment and a hostile environment, effectively denying Plaintiff’s two children C. G. WIMS AND C. J. WIMS (minors) access to educational opportunities.
2. Federal Civil rights abuse of power lead to suit being filed in Federal Court, this suit asks for Relief of all orders made in violation of the law, Due process of law be allowed, and further issue relief as the court deems appropriate.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

Breach of Contract – Florida Statutes Title XLIV. Civil Rights Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with Saint Patrick Interparish School, where it was agreed that the Plaintiff shall pay the requisite enrollment fees and the School shall admit and provide educational facilities for the Plaintiff’s children. The Financial Administrator falsified records to elicit funds from families for financial gain for St Patrick Interparish School.

March 2017, the Plaintiff’s spouse proceeded to the School where he deposited an amount in favor of the School. This among was considered to allow the Plaintiffs children to continue with their enrollment at St Patrick Interparish School.

May 2017, The School’s principal, Defendant Mackritis left the Plaintiff’s fees in the office and sent an email indicating that a package was in the office for the Plaintiffs. The School did not give notice to the Plaintiff that they would cancel the children’s enrollment; neither did the School give any reason as to why they refunded the Plaintiffs tuition enrollment.

The School is in breach of the agreement and the Plaintiffs are entitled to claim damages.

JURISDICTION

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives District Court’s jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.
2. Further, Plaintiff brings this action pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of civil rights under the Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343, which gives district courts original jurisdiction over (a) any civil action authorized by law to be brought by any person to redress the deprivation, under color of any State Law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; and (b) any civil action to recover damages or to secure equitable relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of the civil rights.

1. This Court further has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state law tort claims that arose from the same common nuclei of facts

Plaintiff brings this action to redress a hostile educational environment pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), as more fully set forth herein.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), since all defendants reside or resided in this district and the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district

PARTIES

Plaintiff Regina R. Wims (Mrs. Wims”) is an African-American adult female, and citizen and resident of Florida. Plaintiff is the legal guardian and parent of C. G. WIMS AND C. J. WIMS (minors)

At the time of events complained of herein, Plaintiff’s two children C. G. WIMS AND

J. WIMS (minors) were students attending St. Patrick Interparish School

The Defendant, St. Patrick Interparish School is a private educational institution operating under the Diocese of Saint Augustine and the Catholic Church and situated within the State of Florida.

1. Defendant Diocese of Saint Augustine is a division of the Catholic Church situated within the State of Florida.

Defendant Frank Mackritis in his official and individual capacities is Principal at St. Patrick Interparish School.

Defendant Krista Whitehill is a teacher at St. Patrick Interparish School.

Defendant Glenda Nolan is the financial director of St. Patrick Interparish School.

Defendant Staci Williams is a secretary at St. Patrick Interparish School.

Defendant Victoria Guajardo is a teacher at St. Patrick Interparish School.

Defendant Christina Hasko is a teacher at St. Patrick Interparish School.

Defendant Deacon Scott Conway is a Superintendent of the Saint Augustine Diocese.

Defendant Pamela Diaz is the Director of Title 1 in Alachua County.

Defendant Betsy Boyle is a guidance counselor at St. Patrick Interparish School.

Defendant Laura Jarosiewicz is the teacher assistant at St. Patrick Interparish School.

Defendants in concert with one another and practices, caused the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional and statutory rights.

During all material times, all defendants were agents and/or employees of Defendant St. Patrick Interparish School and Alachua County School Board, acting or failing to act within the scope, course, and authority of their employment and employer

Plaintiff is informed and therefore believe and, on that basis, allege that at all time, each of the said Defendants at all relevant times herein, was acting within the scope and consent of the remaining defendants.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies with the defendants. Plaintiff also filed a grievance complaint with the United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights in 2013 and 2017, but they failed to take any action. Plaintiff also filed a grievance complaint with the Florida Department of Education in 2017, and they failed to take any action.
Alternatively, this Court also should not require Plaintiff to exhaust her administrative remedies. First, the Supreme Court has recognized that courts should not require exhaustion where there is an unreasonable or indefinite time-frame for administrative action.
Exhaustion is thus not appropriate where plaintiff “may suffer irreparable harm if unable to secure immediate judicial consideration of her claim.
Second, exhaustion is not required where the Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the agency procedure itself, “such that the question of the adequacy of the administrative remedy is for all practical purposes identical with the merits of the plaintiff’s lawsuit.” McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 148 (internal brackets omitted).

SUMMARY OF MATERIAL FACTS

At all material times, the Saint Patrick Interparish School was receiving federal funding, as contemplated by Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq; Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C.S. § 1232g)

Saint Patrick Interparish School was a recipient of Title I funds from Alachua County and the Florida Department of Education et al.

1. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that defendant Saint Patrick Interparish School was a recipient of Title I, federal funding from Alachua County, therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Upon information and believe, Defendant Saint Patrick Interparish School is a beneficiary of a federal funding program, PPP1 and PPP2 (Paycheck Protection Program) by the Florida Credit Union (CU) through the Coronavirus Response and Relief supplemental Appropriation Act (CRRSA), and Emergency Assistance to Non-public Schools (EANS)
3. The Saint Patrick Interparish School implemented and executed policies and customs regarding the events that resulted in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional, statutory, and common-law rights.
4. The Saint Patrick Interparish School is responsible for ensuring that all its employees are properly trained and supervised to perform their jobs.
5. Defendant Saint Patrick Interparish School is responsible for the acts and omissions of its employees and students.
6. Plaintiff and her minor children, C. G. WIMS AND C. J. WIMS, are African Americans, are members of a class protected against discrimination on the basis of their race. Further, Plaintiff and her children are members of a class protected against discrimination on the basis of their color.
7. Defendants’ failure to promptly and appropriately investigate and respond to the conducts subjected Plaintiff to deprivation of rights secured to Plaintiff and further harassment and a hostile environment, effectively denying Plaintiff’s two children C. G. WIMS AND C. J. WIMS (minors) access to educational opportunities.
8. At the time of the attack that gave rise to the events complained of herein, beginning in May 2016, Plaintiff experienced challenges at Saint Patrick Interparish School that can only be attributed to systemic racial discrimination, racial intimidation, and bias.
9. Plaintiff and her minor children experienced continued and ongoing harassment, racial discrimination in Saint Patrick Interparish School
10. Plaintiff avers that harassment includes inappropriate conduct that is repeated enough, or serious enough, to negatively impact a student’s educational, physical, or emotional well-being.
11. At the time of the attack that gave rise to this action, Plaintiff two children C. G. WIMS AND C. J. WIMS (minors) were students attending St. Patrick Interparish School, by virtue of same, Plaintiff and her children are members of a class protected against discrimination on the basis of their color and race.
12. During the same period, the Financial Director of Saint Patrick’s Interparish School, Defendant Glenda Nolan, mailed an invoice to the Plaintiff that stated they owed a sum of $310 for failure to complete volunteer hours. A copy of the mail is attached as Exhibit 1
13. Mrs. Wims immediately inquired with Defendant. Nolan about the fee because Mrs. Wims knew the amount was inaccurate; the Plaintiffs completed their service hours on time every year.

Mrs. Wims addressed the incorrect billing to Defendant Nolan who, initially refused to confirm the statements with official documentation. Mrs. Wims requested documents, but Defendant Nolan firmly insisted that the Plaintiffs owed $310 for failure to complete their volunteer hours. A copy of the Plaintiff’s request is attached as EXHIBIT 1

1. Mrs. Wims reluctantly wrote a check for $330, unknowingly writing the incorrect amount because she did not have the invoice with her, and she could not prove it to be inaccurate at that time. Defendant Nolan knew the check exceeded the billed amount but failed to inform Mrs. Wims of the error and failed to provide a refund to the Plaintiffs. The check is attached as Exhibit 1
2. Defendant Nolan deposited the entire amount into the School’s account.
3. In September 2016, Mrs. Wims discovered a discrepancy in Defendant Whitehill’s grading of Chancellor’s math tests. Defendant Whitehill’s assessment of Chancellor’s tests erroneously portrayed lower scores than he had attained. Mrs. Wims did not address this with Defendant Whitehill at the time and chose instead to make further observations.
4. In October 2016, Mrs. Wims discovered that the Saint Patrick Interparish School machine utilized to determine volunteer hours became damaged during the 2016 school year. The School’s administration had fraudulently charged minority parents (African American and Hispanic) for volunteer hours if they could not prove their completion of the required hours (12 hours for single parents, 25 hours for married parents).
5. Defendant’s failure to treat similarly situated white parents the same way under like situations is compelling circumstantial evidence of discrimination. Defendant discriminated against and harassed based on national origin, and that Plaintiff was subjected to retaliation.
6. The Plaintiffs visited Saint Patrick Interparish School to address Defendant Nolan on the issue and requested that Defendant Frank Mackritis attend the meeting. Defendant Nolan informed the Plaintiffs that Defendant Mackritis was unable to attend the meeting.

Mrs. Wims informed Defendant Nolan that she was aware of the fraud. Mrs. Wims then demanded Defendant Nolan to return their money or she would contact the St Augustine Diocese and the authorities. Defendant Nolan acknowledged the money owed and immediately issued the Plaintiffs a check for $330. A copy is attached as Exhibit 1

1. Later, Defendant Mackritis emailed the Plaintiff asking that they allow him to explain the reason for mistake. The Plaintiff discovered that Defendant Mackritis was not initially aware of the deception to the families when it occurred earlier in May. However, by October 2016, Plaintiff were convinced Defendant Mackritis knew and did nothing to rectify the situation on behalf of the minority parents at Saint Patrick Interparish School. A copy of Mackritis email is attached as Exhibit 1.
2. In December 2016, several African American families, experienced racial discrimination and intimidation by the School’s administration. The families state that Saint Patrick’s principal, Defendant Mackritis, Superintendent of the Saint Augustine Diocese, Defendant Conway, and the Saint Patrick’s Guidance Counselor, Betsy Boyle, demonstrated partiality, discrimination, and unfair treatment to students belonging to minority parents.
3. The students were dismissed from Saint Patrick Interparish School unjustly with tarnished behavior records to their parents’ dismay. The parents felt powerless and helpless even after speaking with Defendant Conway, who was the School’s Superintendent and mediator for the families and St Patrick Interparish School

In February 2017, a white female student at Saint Patrick Interparish School, verbally abused Chancellor, a child of the Plaintiffs. Mrs. Wims emailed Defendant Mackritis and Defendant Whitehill to inform them about the female student’s inappropriate language and behavior towards Chancellor. Defendant Mackritis responded that they were aware of the situation, while Defendant Whitehill answered that it was “being handled”. A copy of the correspondence is attached as Exhibit 2.

1. The very same day while Mrs. Wims was collecting her children from School, Chancellor identified the female student to Mrs. Wims. Mrs. Wims was surprised and noted that the female student had safety patrol privileges that day.

The next day, the same female student again verbally abused another female student. Chancellor witnessed the incident and Mrs. Wims requested Defendant Mackritis provide the Saint Patrick’s disciplinary protocol for students that use profanity and intimidation at Saint Patrick Interparish School. Mrs. Wims could not reach Defendant Mackritis initially, and therefore directed the email to Father John Phillips, a member of staff at St. Patrick Interparish School. Father John Phillips’s response was neutral, but he did provide a corrective response in that the behavior was inappropriate. A copy of the correspondence is attached as Exhibit 2.

Defendant Mackritis respondent to Mrs. Wims’ email and stated that “St Patrick’s disciplinary actions regarding other students are private matters”. Mrs. Wims responded that she understood that student affairs are private matters, but she requested the School’s disciplinary protocol in this situation. Neither of the Plaintiffs received a further response from the Defendant Mackritis. A copy of Mackritis’ response is attached as Exhibit 2.

1. March 2017, C. G. Wims had an incident in which he was bullied by another student named J. Comer, an African American student at Saint Patrick’s School. The situation became so extreme that Mrs. Wims decided to speak to the child’s parents about his behavior.
2. Mrs. Wims also opted to address the issue with Laura Jarosiewicz, the teacher assistant who witnessed the exchange between C. G. Wims and J. Comer. However, Mrs. Wims discovered the explanation by Defendant Jarosiewicz, the teacher assistant, varied from that of Defendant Whitehill.
3. Defendant Whitehill stated in an email that she wanted to address the issue immediately, but she did not witness the incident. She proceeded to place C. G. Wims on silent lunch, which Mrs. Wims disagreed with as C. G. Wims was the one who had been provoked. J. Comer was also placed in quiet lunch. Mrs. Wims immediately thought about the incident with the Caucasian female student in February who was allowed to continue with Safety Patrol privileges.

In March 2017, C. G. Wims’ teacher, Defendant Whitehill, informed the students that they had an opportunity to increase their grade by bringing items for Catholic Charities. Mrs. Wims emailed Defendant Whitehill that evening and requested that the extra credit applies to C. G. Wims’ course with the lowest score. C. G. Wims’ grades in Religion and Social Studies were in the high 70’s (77-79). C. G. Wims’ grades in his other courses were A’s and B’s. He desired to make the A/B honor roll as he had previously and throughout the year in 4th grade. A copy of the Plaintiff’s email is attached as Exhibit 3.

C. G. Wims took a test in religion and earned 100%, which increased his final grade to 81. Mrs. Wims later received an email from Defendant Whitehill stating that she reevaluated

G. Wims’ grade and his final grade was 79. Shocked and disappointed, Mrs. Wims indicated that it would be accepted if C. G. Wims had earned that grade. Mrs. Wims requested Defendant Whitehill to provide a review of C. G. Wims grades/tests/assignments.

1. Defendant Whitehill informed Mrs. Wims that she returned a portion of the grades to C. G. Wims and that the cleaning staff disposed of the remaining grades. Defendant Whitehill emphatically stated that she had NO RECORD of the grades that the cleaning staff discarded. C. G. Wims was devastated; he was so distraught that he did not want to attend School on Friday because the honor roll ceremony would occur, and he would not be able to participate. C. G. Wims was denied the opportunity to participate in the Honor Roll Society Ceremony. Mr. and Mrs. Wims allowed him to remain home for the school day. Exhibit 3
2. When C. G. Wims returned to School, Defendant Whitehill asked that he return the third quarter grading sheet for the parents to sign. Defendant Whitehill further informed C. G. Wims that failure to have the document signed by the parent will force the administration to place Chancellor in silent lunch.

Mrs. Wims wrote a letter stating that neither she nor Mr. Wims will agree to sign C. G. Wims’ report card and that Chancellor should not be penalized for their refusal. A copy is attached as Exhibit 4

March 2017, Mrs. Wims contacted the Diocese of Saint Augustine to address their family and other parents’ challenges at Saint Patrick Interparish School with Defendant Conway. In March 2017, Mrs. Wims spoke with Defendant Conway to discuss those challenges. Exhibit 5

1. Defendant Conway listened as Mrs. Wims informed him of the racial and discriminatory incidents that she believed warranted further evaluation by the Diocese of Saint Augustine. Defendant Conway stated he would contact the School and return a phone call to the Plaintiffs with an update.

Mr. and Mrs. Wims never received a return phone call from Defendant Conway. Mrs. Wims emailed Deacon Conway and did not receive a response from him after the email. Exhibit 5

1. March 2017, Mr. Wims visited Saint Patrick’s Interparish School to submit registration fee payment for their sons, C G. Wims and C. J. Wims, to return to Saint Patrick for the 2017 – 2018 school year. The principal, Defendant Mackritis, met Mr. Wims without reasons stated that “If your family is so unhappy with the school, you could leave”.
2. This conversation took place in front of the School’s administrative staff. Mr. Wims asked Defendant Mackritis to step outside so others would not be privy to their conversation. Mr. Wims explained to Defendant Mackritis that he and Mrs. Wims are aware that they could select another school for their children. Defendant Mackritis reiterated to Mr. Wims again that they should remove their children if they are not happy.
3. Defendant Mackritis later requested a meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Wims. Mrs. Wims informed Defendant Mackritis that she began a new job, and the hours that Frank Mackritis selected were not conducive for her.
4. Additionally, based on their experience with Saint Patrick Interparish School’s administration and Defendant Conway, Mr. and Mrs. Wims did not believe they would receive fair representation. Neither Defendant Conway nor the Diocese of St Augustine investigated their complaints. The Wims family contacted Evelyn Foxx of the Gainesville Chapter of the NAACP as an advocate for support; this was not successful either. Exhibit 6
5. Later within the month of March 2017, Defendant Whitehill met Mr. Wims in the parking lot of Saint Patrick Interparish School. Defendant Whitehill requested C. G. Wims explain to Mr. Wims what had occurred that day.

C. G. Wims explained to Mr. Wims that during the day, two white male students, Eli and Michael, came BEHIND Chancellor and stepped on the heel of his shoes with the intent to kick and trip him (students call this a “flat tire”). C. G. Wims became angry and hit each child back once. Exhibit 7

1. Defendant Whitehill informed Mr. Wims that C. G. Wims would receive a demerit for responding to the provocation. Furthermore, Defendant Whitehill stated that only Michael shall be penalized by demerit as Eli is considered to be an honest student who mistakenly stepped on C. G. Wims’ heel.
2. When Mr. Wims questioned the decision not to penalize Eli, Defendant Whitehill responded that the question should be taken up with Defendant Mackritis, who makes the penalty decisions.

April 2017, Mr. and Mrs. Wims’ second child, C. J. Wims, attended Defendant Hasko’s second-grade class. Defendant Hasko called Mrs. Wims to state that C. J. Wims had received 5 DEMERITS because he pulled his pants down at the water fountain at Saint Patrick Interparish School. Exhibit 8

1. Defendant Hasko explained that she did not witness the incident, but two other students informed her that Christian pulled his pants down at the water fountain. She further explained that she is a fair person and would not give Christian a demerit unless “she felt that he did this”.

Mrs. Wims emailed Defendant Hasko, that she is frustrated because the incidents involving their children, C. G. Wims and C. J. Wims are “outright discriminatory in nature and exacerbated as tools to remove the children from Saint Patrick’s Interparish School as well as tarnish the children’s character.” A copy is attached as Exhibit 8

1. Mrs. Wims further stated that C. J. Wims was so afraid of Defendant Hasko after the incident that he missed 20 days of School during the last nine weeks of the term due to stomach aches, headaches, and anxiety. C. J. Wims had never had any disciplinary or misbehavior issues before this incident. When C. J. Wims returned to School, Mrs. Wims emailed Ms. Hasko, informing her to ensure C. J. Wims is treated fairly during the remaining school term. Exhibit 8
2. May 2017, C. G. Wims read a book titled “Terrors of the Deep” and requested to take an AR (Accelerated Reader) assessment after completing the book. Defendant Whitehill had previously stated to C. G. Wims that if he desired to read books outside of his reading range, he would need to ask her permission before selecting the text. Defendant Whitehill became so infuriated with that she took C. G. Wims the opportunity to intimidate him by slamming a book down on his desk and berated and embarrassed him in front of the entire class.
3. Defendant Whitehill then proceeded to rebuke C. G. Wims in front of the entire students in the class. C. G. Wims informed his mother, Mrs. Wims, how he was embarrassed and humiliated in class by Defendant Whitehill.

Mrs. Wims contacted Defendant Whitehill in an email and told her that she did not have the right to intimidate and bully him by slamming a book down and refusing him to take the A.R. test because it was out of C. G. Wims’s reading range. A copy of the email is attached as Exhibit 9

1. Mrs. Wims spoke with Defendant Whitehill the following day and stated that she is unhappy with Defendant Whitehill’s treatment of C. G. Wims and the same would not be tolerated again. Defendant Mackritis arrived and asked Mr. and Mrs. Wims to leave the School.
2. C. G. Wims took the Accelerated Reader exam and failed.

May 2017, Defendant Guajardo, a 4th-grade teacher that C. G. Wims had for advanced math at Saint Patrick’s Interparish School, requested an assignment from C. G. Wims. When C. G. Wims submitted the work to her, she openly challenged his character and integrity in front of the entire class making it appear as though C. G. Wims is not capable of submitting legitimate assignments. Exhibit 10

1. C. G. Wims was again subjected to embarrassment and humiliation by an instructor at Saint Patrick Interparish School. In this situation, C. G. Wims had submitted the assignment promptly. However, Defendant Guajardo proceeded to ask two white students if C. G. Wims was telling the truth. One of the students responded with “I do not know”, while the other responded with “Yes, C. G. Wims completed and turned in the assignment.”
2. Again, the administration at Saint Patrick Interparish School Violated C. G. Wims right to due process by insinuating that he is a liar and that C. G. Wims word was insufficient, and Defendant Guajardo felt the need to validate C. G. Wims statement and assignments through his peers. Mrs. Wims also stated that this treatment was demeaning and did not warrant the interrogation by Defendant Guajardo. Exhibit 10
3. Mrs. Wims states that she contacted the Diocese of Saint Augustine to follow the chain of command for school complaints. The secretary informed her that she would “receive a return phone call if the administration deemed it appropriate to do so.”
4. Mrs. Wims states that she and Mr. Wims paid Saint Patrick Interparish School registration fees for the 2017 – 2018 school year for C. G. Wims and C. J. Wims. The administration returned their registration fees without explanation. When Mrs. Wims emailed Defendant Mackritis about the returned payment, he responded by an email requesting a meeting, but he did not explain the purpose of their returned check. The Defendants did not want the Plaintiffs to return their children to Saint Patrick Interparish School for the 2017 – 2018 school year. In contrast, other similarly situated parents allegedly can register their children for the 2017-2018 school year.
5. There are additional incidents that the Plaintiffs experienced at Saint Patrick Interparish School that they believe warrant further investigation. There are documented incidents that display a long-term history of racial discrimination, mainly since C. G. Wims and C. J. Wims have attended the School.
6. In December 2016, Four African American families were forced to leave Saint Patrick Interparish School during the 2016 Christmas break. Their circumstances were identical to the Wims children; racial discrimination and intimidation accompanied by unsubstantiated accounts of behavior issues.

Mrs. Wims notes that there are no African American teachers at Saint Patrick Interparish School to represent diversity and inclusivity even though this institution receives Title I funds from the Alachua County School Board. A significant number of African American children participate in the remedial program. The Title I received from Saint Patrick Interparish School is attached. Exhibit 11 Yearbook

1. Mrs. Wims visited the Director of Title I in Alachua County, Pam Diaz. When Mrs. Wims initially met Pam Diaz, she confirmed that Saint Patrick Interparish School was a recipient of Title I funds from Alachua County and the Florida Department of Education. After the School’s administration became aware of Mrs. Wims’ intentions to file a complaint, Mrs. Wims states she attempted to revisit Pam Diaz. Pam Diaz refused to see or speak with Mrs. Wims a second time. Exhibit 12
2. St Patrick Interparish School receives federal funding through the Florida Department of Education Title I Program. FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) 20 U.S.C. s. 1232g. The Plaintiff requested their children’s academic records, reports, and tests and received a handwritten academic record for child, C. G. Wims. The Plaintiff noted that it was not a legitimate academic record. PENALTY: If any official or employee of an institution refuses to comply with this section, the aggrieved parent or student has an immediate right to bring an action in circuit court to enforce his or her rights by injunction. Any aggrieved parent or student who receives injunctive relief may be awarded attorney fees and court costs. Exhibit 13

The State Board of Education states if an institution receives federal funding, and the parents request their child’s records, they must comply. A copy of the Plaintiff’s request and defendants’ responses are attached as EXHIBIT 13 and 14 respectfully. Staci, the receptionist at St Patrick’s Interparish School office, emailed Mrs. Wims indicating the academic record for C. G. Wims was not available for several grades. Exhibit 14

1. Mrs. Wims submitted complaints to the Florida Department of Education and did not receive relief. A copy is attached as EXHIBIT 15

Mrs. Wims submitted formal complaints to the Office of Civil Rights and did not receive relief. A copy is attached as EXHIBIT 16

Actions of St Patrick Interparish School, Diocese of St Augustine and Defendants resulted in extensive therapeutic intervention for C. G. Wims and C. J. Wims. Intervention will resume, Mrs. Wims desired the children receive intervention from an African American therapist and it has taken time to interview therapists.
As a direct and proximate result of the harassing educational environment created by Defendants’ deliberately indifferent response to the conducts of Defendant’s employees and subsequent harassment, as well as violations of her Fourteenth Amendment rights, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer psychological damage, emotional distress, loss of standing in her community, and damage to her reputation.
Plaintiff had ongoing counseling to address her depression and anxiety caused by Defendants’ conduct and the resulting harassing educational environment.
Plaintiff children have also been deprived of a standard childhood education due to Defendants’ conduct and the resulting educational environment.
Plaintiff minor children have also been damaged by missed educational opportunities and their future earning capabilities have been damaged by Defendants’ conduct and the resulting hostile educational environment.

COUNT I

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq.

Paragraphs one through above are incorporated by reference as if stated in full herein.
Plaintiff and her children are African Americans, which is a racial minority. The Defendants committed actions that are discriminatory; such actions are as alleged hereinbelow and in this Complaint altogether. Lastly, Section 1981 creates rights, inter alia, the right to enter and enforce contracts. Here, Plaintiff, just like other African American parents, had the right to enter a contract with the Defendant school and to fully benefit from the said contract. She is also entitled to the rights for the full and equal benefit of all laws for her security and that of her children.
The harassment and discrimination articulated in the Plaintiff’s General Allegations was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that its deprived Plaintiff children of access to educational opportunities or benefits provided by the School.
Deliberately charging Plaintiff $310 alleging for failure to complete their volunteer hours, while Plaintiff in fact completed their volunteer hours. Other white parents weren’t charged any amount whatsoever. Defendants also, knowingly collected $330 from Plaintiff knowing that Plaintiff had inadvertently overpaid but failed to return the balance to Plaintiff. The $330 was reluctantly returned by defendant Nolan after Plaintiff threatened to report the matter to the St Augustine Diocese and the authorities.
Plaintiff and her children were discriminated against and harassed based on national origin by defendants and students. The discrimination and harassment were regular and routine, and often occurred several times a month. Plaintiff and other African American and Hispanic were charged extra money by defendant St Patrick Interparish School when the machine utilized to determine volunteer hours became damaged during the 2016 school year, while other similarly situated white parents were not charged any extra money. Defendant failure to treat similarly situated white parents the same way under like situations is a compelling circumstantial evidence of discrimination. Defendant discriminated against and harassed based on national origin, and that Plaintiff was subjected to retaliation.
September 2016, Discriminatory treatment against Plaintiff based on her color and race by single handedly grading Plaintiff’s son C. G. Wims’s math tests lower than his actual scores he had attained whereas, others were graded according to their scores. This was also repeated in March 2017. Defendant Whitehill refused or failed to provide to plaintiff C. G. Wims’s grades/tests/assignments, despite request to see same and review. The administration prevented Plaintiff’s son, C. G. Wims, from attending Honor Roll Society ceremony.
In February 2017, a white female student at Saint Patrick Interparish School, verbally abused Plaintiff’s child C. G. Wims, and the defendants failed to take any action to redress this or investigate, despite a request from Plaintiff to do so.
March 2017, C. G. Wims was bullied by another student named J. Comer, an African American student at Saint Patrick’s School. Despite this, defendant Whitehill proceeded to place C. G. Wims on silent lunch, which Plaintiff disagreed with as C. G. Wims was the one who was provoked.
Defendant Whitehill threatened and intimidated Plaintiff’s son with another silent lunch if he failed to return the third quarter grading sheet for the parents to sign.
Defendants’ conduct was committed with malice within the meaning of extant Federal laws and including that (a) defendants acted with intent to cause injury to Plaintiff and/or acted with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s injury, including taking other adverse educational actions against plaintiff children because of her race, national origin, color, and/or good faith complaints, and/or (b) defendants’ conduct was despicable and committed in willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, health, and safety, including Plaintiff’s right to be free of discrimination, harassment and retaliation
In addition, and/or alternatively, defendants’ conduct was committed with oppression within the meaning of extant Federal laws, including that defendants’ actions against Plaintiff because of her race, national origin, color, sexual orientation, marital and/or good faith complaints were “despicable” and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship, in knowing disregard of parent’s rights to children education and free of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
Defendants persisted in their actions and inaction even after it had actual knowledge of the harm suffered by Plaintiff and her minor children.
Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of behavior designed to discourage and dissuade students and parents of students who had been discriminated from being fully investigated.
This policy and/or practice constituted disparate treatment of African Americans and had a disparate impact on African Americans students.
Plaintiff and her minor children have suffered emotional distress and psychological damage, and their character and standing in their community have suffered from the harassment fostered as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ deliberate indifference to their rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

COUNT II

1983 VIOLATION AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

Paragraphs one through above are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff had a parental right to take her children to a private school and her children personal security and bodily integrity and Equal Protection of Laws.
Defendants were all actors acting under the color of law.
Pursuant to Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Company, 398 U.S. 144 90 S. Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970), privately owned indivuduals who act pursuant to a “custom or usage”, which has the force of law in the state, may be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court in Adickes observed that § 1983 require the discriminatory custom be proved to exist in the locale where the discrimination took place and in the State generally.
This Court should take judicial notice of the fact that in December 2016, several African American families, experienced racial discrimination and intimidation by the Defendant School’s administration. The families state that Saint Patrick’s principal, Defendant Mackritis, Superintendent of the Saint Augustine Diocese, Defendant Conway, and the Saint Patrick’s Guidance Counselor, Betsy Boyle, demonstrated partiality, discrimination, and unfair treatment to students belonging to minority parents. Besides, the students were dismissed from Saint Patrick Interparish School unjustly with tarnished behavior records to their parents’ dismay.
The Court should also take judicial notice that racial discrimination is prominent in many schools in Florida.
Plaintiff second son C. J. Wims, had received 5 demerits punishment because he was alleged to have pulled his pants down at the water fountain at Saint Patrick Interparish School.
Defendants never instigated this baseless allegation but punish Plaintiff’s son on hear-say basis. This act is an outright discriminatory in nature and exacerbated as tools to remove the children from Saint Patrick’s Interparish School as well as tarnish the children’s character. Intimidating, slamming a book down on C. G. Wims’ desk, berated and embarrassed him in front of the entire class because he requested to grant AR (Accelerated Reader) assessment after completing book, “Terrors of the Deep”.
As a form of retaliation, defendants returned Plaintiff’s check for the registration fees for the 2017 – 2018 school year without explanation because the administration did not want the children to return to Saint Patrick Interparish School for the 2017 – 2018 school year. While other similarly situated parents were alleged to register their children for the 2017-2018 school year. Defendant deprived plaintiff children educational opportunity when Defendant Mackritis, informed Plaintiff’s husband not to bring his children to St Patrick Interparish School.
Deliberately charging Plaintiff $310 for failure to complete their volunteer hours, while Plaintiff in fact completed their volunteer hours. Other white parents weren’t charged any amount whatever so. Defendants also, knowingly collecting $330 from Plaintiff knowing that Plaintiff had inadvertently overpaid and failed to return the balance to Plaintiff. The $330 was reluctantly returned by defendant Nolan after when Plaintiff threatened to report the matter to the St Augustine Diocese and the authorities.
Plaintiff and her children were discriminated against and harassed based on national origin by defendants and students. The discrimination and harassment were regular and routine, and often occurred several times a month. Plaintiff and other African American and Hispanic were charged extra money by defendant Patrick Interparish School when the machine utilized to determine volunteer hours became damaged during the 2016 school, while other similarly situated white parents were not charged any extra money. Defendant failure to treat similarly situated white parents the same way under like situations is a compelling circumstantial evidence of discrimination. Defendant discriminated against and harassed based on national origin, and that Plaintiff was subjected to retaliation in violation.
September 2016, Discriminatory treatment against Plaintiff based on her color and race by single handedly grading Plaintiff’s son C. G. Wims’s math tests lower than his actual scores he had attained. This was also repeated in March 2017. Defendant Whitehill refused or failed to provide Plaintiff C. G. Wims’s grades/tests/assignments, despite request to see same and review.
In February 2017, a white female student at Saint Patrick Interparish School, verbally abused C. G. Wims a child of the Plaintiff and the defendants failed to take any action to redress this or investigate, despite request from Plaintiff to do so.
March 2017, C. G. Wims was bullied by another student named J. Comer, an African American student at Saint Patrick’s School. Despite this Defendant Whitehill proceeded to place C. G. Wims on silent lunch, which Plaintiff disagreed with as C. G. Wims was the one who had been provoked.
Defendant Whitehill threatened, and intimidated Plaintiff’s son with another silent lunch if he failed to return the third quarter grading sheet for the parents to sign
Defendant failed to investigate alleged assault, in March 2017, when two white male students, Eli and Michael, came behind C. G. Wims and stepped on the heel of his shoes with the intent to kick and trip him (students call this a “flat tire”). C. G. Wims became angry and hit each child back once. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff’s son by giving him a demerit for responding to the provocation, while one of the similarly situated white student (Eli) who kicked and tripped Plaintiff’s son goes unpunished.
Defendants each subjected Plaintiff and her children to violations of their right to personal security and bodily integrity and Equal Protection of Laws by: failing to investigate misconduct; failing to address retaliation and racial discrimination; failing to appropriately discipline; failing to adequately train and supervise employees; and manifesting deliberate indifference to the assault, discrimination, and ongoing harassment of Plaintiff.
St. Patick Interparish School has and/or had unconstitutional customs or policies of: ( a) failing to investigate evidence of criminal and tortious misconduct against School students in the nature of violations of their right to personal security and bodily integrity; and (b) failing to adequately train and supervise School employees with regard to maintaining, preserving and protecting students from violations of their right to personal security, bodily integrity, and Equal Protection of the Laws.
On information and belief, defendants have followed these unconstitutional customs and policies not only with regard to Plaintiff but also with regard to criminal and tortious misconduct committed against other African- American parents/students.
St. Patrick Interparish School policies and/or practices constituted disparate treatment of African- American parents/students and had a disparate impact on African- American parents/students.
Defendants Frank Mackritis, Krista Whitehill, Glenda Nolan, and Betsy Boyle, Staci Williams, Victoria Guajardo, Christina Hasko, Deacon Scott Conway, Pamela Diaz, are or were at the time of events complained of within, policymakers to implement the St. Patrick Interparish School unconstitutional policies or customs.
Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress and psychological damage, and her character and standing in her community have suffered from the harassment, discrimination fostered as a direct and proximate result of Defendants

COUNT III

LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO TRAIN AND SUPERVISE AS TO RESPONSE TO ASSAULT, DISCRIMINATION, AS ALL DEFENDANTS (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

Paragraphs one through above are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
Employee Defendants were “state actors” working for St. Patrick Interparish School, a federally funded school system. Defendants are also subject to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Company, 398 U.S. 144 90 S. Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970), as already alleged above.
Defendants acted under “color of law” when refusing to respond to Plaintiff’s complaints.
Defendants failed to preserve Plaintiff’s constitutional right to equal protection of a parent as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff had parental rights to equal access to an educational environment free from harassment and discrimination.
Defendants employees should have known that their response allegations complaint must comply with federal law, particularly as outlined in Title IX’s published and widely promulgated implementing regulations.
Defendants each violated Plaintiff’s right to equal access by: a) Failing to take immediate and appropriate action to investigate or otherwise determine what occurred once informed of possible discrimination, violence; b). Failing to take prompt and effective steps to end the alleged conducts, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects, whether or not the violence is the subject of a criminal investigation; c). Failing to take steps to protect the Plaintiff as necessary, including interim steps taken prior to the final outcome of the investigation; d). Failing to provide a grievance procedure for parents to file complaints of racial discrimination, including complaints of assault violence, denial of access to education. The procedures must include an equal opportunity for both parties to present witnesses and other evidence and the same appeal rights; e). Failing to use a preponderance of the evidence standard to resolve complaints of discrimination, harassment in grievance procedures; and f). Failing to notify both parties of the outcome of the Complaint.
Defendant St. Patrick Interparish School violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection by failing to properly train and supervise its employees as to these mandated requirements.
These policies and/or practices constituted disparate treatment of African-Americans students/parents and had a disparate impact on African-Americans students/parents.
Defendants’ actions and lack of actions were the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s emotional distress and psychological damage, and her character and standing in her community have suffered from the harassment fostered as a result of Defendant School’s deliberate indifference to her right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

COUNT IV

1983 CLAIM OF RETAILIATION FOR EXERCISE OF FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED FREE SPEECH ACTIVITY AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff reallege and incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs in this Complaint.
Defendants are subject to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Company, 398 U.S. 144 90 S. Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970), as already alleged above.
Defendants personally, maliciously, and under color of state law deprived Plaintiff of her rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which are secured through the Fourteenth Amendment, by maliciously retaliating against Plaintiffs for Plaintiffs’ exercise of the constitutional right of free speech to Complaint against defendants conducts, activity of great public interest of which Plaintiff disapproved and challenged peacefully without interfering with the State’s operations.
In depriving Plaintiffs of these rights, Defendants committed these unlawful violations under color of state law in bad faith and with malicious purpose in reckless, wanton, and willful disregard of Plaintiffs’ human, safety, and liberty rights.
Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff as a result of the above protected activities of Plaintiff, Defendant retaliated by returning Plaintiff’s check for the registration fees for her children for the 2017 – 2018 school year without explanation because the administration did not want the children to return to Saint Patrick Interparish School. While other similarly situated parents were allowed to register their children for the 2017-2018 school year.
Defendants personally, maliciously, and under color of law deprived Plaintiff of her rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which are secured through the Fourteenth Amendment, by maliciously retaliating, deprived plaintiff children educational opportunity when Defendant Mackritis, informed Plaintiff’s husband not to return C. G. Wims and C. J. Wims to St Patrick Interparish School.

COUNT V

STATE TORT OF CIVIL CONSPIRACY AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs in this Complaint.

Pursuant to Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 2005 U.S. LEXIS 2965, 544 U.S. 960, 125 S. Ct. 1729, 161 L. Ed. 2d 601, 73 U.S.L.W. 3593 (U.S. Apr. 4, 2005), federal question jurisdiction may still exist over state law claims that implicate significant federal issues if such jurisdiction will not distort the division of labor between the state and federal courts.
In the instant action, the Plaintiff alleges that the claims herein raises several federal issues. Besides, this Court’s determination of this specific cause would easen the Courts’ work since Plaintiff won’t have to file a separate case at the State Court.
The Defendants conspired with one another to subject Plaintiff and her children to a hostile school environment and discrimination based on their race and color, as detailed above.
The hostile school environment was severe and pervasive based on the nature of the harassment, including egregious statements made by numerous employees and students expressing animus towards Plaintiff race, and color, the constant and unwavering harassment and derogatory comments towards Plaintiff children based on their race, and color.
Defendants treated nonwhite parents/students less favorably. The defendants’ failure to treat similarly situated parents/students the same way under like situations is compelling circumstantial evidence of discrimination.
Defendants, together, retaliated against Plaintiff by reducing Plaintiff’s children grades, threatening to blacklist for demerits, and ultimately forcing Plaintiff’s children to leave St. Patrick’s Interparish School Program and otherwise injure Plaintiff.
Accordingly, Defendants’ discriminatory acts have deprived Plaintiff of equal parents’ opportunities in St. Patrick Interparish School because of his race, color and engagement of protected activity in violation of extant federal laws.
As a further direct result of the aforesaid unlawful discriminatory practices engaged in by the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, and loss of self-esteem.

COUNT VI

VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS

(against all defendants)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
Defendants are subject to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Company, 398 U.S. 144 90 S. Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970), as already alleged above.
Plaintiff avers that Defendant violated the fifth and fourteenth amendments right to due process which encompassing parental rights to enjoy the companionship and education of one’s children
Plaintiff avers that procedural due process prevents the deprivation of one’s life, liberty, or property without appropriate procedures to safeguard one’s interests.
The Due Process Clause provides that the substantive rights of life, liberty, and property cannot be deprived except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures… an individual must be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest requires “some kind of hearing
Defendant St. Patrick Interparish School did not follow due process of law when returning Plaintiff’s check for the registration fees for her children for the 2017 – 2018 school year without explanation because the administration did not want the children to return to Saint Patrick Interparish School. While other similarly situated parents were allowed to register their children for the 2017-2018 school year.
Defendants personally, maliciously, and under color of law deprived Plaintiff of her Fourteenth Amendment, by maliciously drip riving children educational opportunity or access to School when Defendant Mackritis, informed Plaintiff’s husband not to bring his children to St Patrick Interparish School in violation of Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights.

COUNT VII

VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS

(Against Defendant Saint Patrick Interparish School)

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though said paragraphs were fully set forth herein
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires states and individuals to practice equal protection.
The equal protection right under the Fourteenth Amendment “erects no shield against private conduct…” United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 621, 120 s. Ct. 1740, 146 L.E.d 2d 658 (2000).
Equal protection forces Saint Patrick Interparish School to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate objective. Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the human protection right of the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff pays to Saint Patrick Interparish School; the enrollment fees and honor volunteer hours, and the School has an obligation to admit and provide educational facilities for the Plaintiff’s children.
March 2017, the Plaintiff proceeded to the School where he deposited an amount requested by the St Patrick Interparish School. This amount was considered to allow the Plaintiff’s children to continue with their education at St Patrick Interparish School.
May 2017, St Patrick Interparish School returned the Plaintiff’s money paid in March 2017. The School did not give any reason as to why they refunded Plaintiff’s money.
Plaintiff alleged that the act of the defendants is unlawful, unfair or fraudulent practice and unfair, deceptive, prohibited by extant federal laws
Plaintiff has suffered an absorbent amount of damage as a result of Defendant’s senseless act.
Defendant’s actions, as described above, were objectively unreasonable, willful and wanton, and shocking to the conscience in light of the facts and circumstances
The conduct of the individual Defendant described herein violated established rights of Plaintiff of which reasonable people in the Defendants’ position knew or should have known.
Defendants committed these unlawful violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional and State rights under color of state law in bad faith and with malicious purpose in reckless, wanton, and willful disregard of Plaintiff’s human, safety, and liberty rights.

COUNT VIII

CONSPIRACY PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1985

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though said paragraphs were fully set forth herein.
Defendants deprived Plaintiff of rights secured and/or guaranteed under both Federal and Statute law, which rights are alleged in this action.
The Defendants conspired with one another to subject Plaintiff and her children to a hostile school environment and discrimination based on their race and color, as detailed above.
The hostile school environment was severe and pervasive based on the nature of the harassment, including egregious statements made by numerous employees and students expressing animus towards Plaintiff race, and color, the constant and unwavering harassment and derogatory comments towards Plaintiff children based on their race, and color.
Defendants treated nonwhite parents/students less favorably. The defendants’ failure to treat similarly situated parents/students the same way under like situations is compelling circumstantial evidence of discrimination.
Defendants, together, retaliated against Plaintiff by reducing Plaintiff’s children grades, threatening to blacklist for demerits, and ultimately forcing Plaintiff’s children to leave St. Patrick’s Interparish School Program and otherwise injure Plaintiff.
Accordingly, Defendants’ discriminatory acts have deprived Plaintiff of equal parents’ opportunities in St. Patrick Interparish School because of his race, color and engagement of protected activity in violation of extant federal laws.
As a further direct result of the aforesaid unlawful discriminatory practices engaged in by the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, and loss of self-esteem.

COUNT IX

BREACH OF CONTRACT

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though said paragraphs were fully set forth herein.
A contractual relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendant. The contractual relationship existed from the enrolment of Plaitniff’s children in Defendant’s institution.
Defendnat had a contractual obligations to ensure all its employees are properly trained and supervised for their jobs. Defendant is also responsobel for all the acts of its employees. Besides, Defendant also had a duty to ensure all children learingin in its institution are protected from any harmful conduct and/or environment.
Plaintiff duly performed her part of contractual obligations by settling all fees as required.
However, Defendant breached its obligations as already alleged herein. Notably, Defendant either promoted, or failed to prevent discriemination against African American children, on the basis of their race and color.
Defendants also failed to promptly and appropriately investigate and respond to the conducts that subjected Plaintiff to deprivation of rights, further harassment and a hostile environment.
It follows; Plaintiff and her minor children experienced continued and ongoing harassment, racial discrimination in Saint Patrick Interparish School. It is worth noting that that the harassment included inappropriate conduct that is repeated enough, or serious enough, to negatively impact a student’s educational, physical, or emotional well-being.
One such incidence happened on or about May 2017, when C. G. Wims read a book titled “Terrors of the Deep” and requested to take an (Accelerated Reader) assessment after completing the book. Defendant Whitehill had previously stated to C. G. Wims that if he desired to read books outside of his reading range, he would need to ask her permission before selecting the text. Defendant Whitehill became so infuriated with that she took C. G. Wims the opportunity to intimidate him by slamming a book down on his desk and berated and embarrassed him in front of the entire class. Defendant Whitehill then proceeded to rebuke C. G. Wims in front of the entire students in the class. C. G. Wims informed his mother, Mrs. Wims, how he was embarrassed and humiliated in class by Defendant Whitehill.
As a direct and proximate result of the harassing educational environment created by Defendants’ deliberate breach of their contractual obligations, as well as Defendnats’ violations of Fourteenth Amendment rights, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer psychological damage, emotional distress, loss of standing in her community, and damage to her reputation.
Plaintiff had ongoing counseling to address her depression and anxiety caused by Defendants’ conduct and the resulting harassing educational environment. Also, Plaintiff children have also been deprived of a standard childhood education due to Defendants’ conduct and the resulting educational environment.
It is also worth noting that Plaintiff’s minor children have also been damaged by missed educational opportunities and their future earning capabilities have been damaged by Defendants’ conduct and the resulting hostile educational environment.

COUNT X

NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though said paragraphs were fully set forth herein.
Defendants had a duty of care to ensure Plaintiff’s children were not subjected to any form of harm and discrimination. Notably, Defendants are aware that discrimination against African Americans is a pertinent social issue in the contemporary American society. For that reason, Defendants had a duty to ensure systems were in place to prevenet inceidences of racial discrimination from happening in Defendant’s school.
Besides, the Defendant also had a duty to ensure all memebrs of its staff perform their work in an impeccable manner. This includes training and monitoring members of staff to ensurte compliance with all of the school’s polices.
However, the Defendant breached the said duties in the manner alleged herein. Defendant either promoted, or failed to prevent discriemination against African American children, on the basis of their race and color. Defendants also failed to promptly and appropriately investigate and respond to the conducts that subjected Plaintiff to deprivation of rights, further harassment and a hostile environment.
Another inciedence showing Defendant’s breach of duties happened on or about September 2016, when Plaintiff discovered a discrepancy in Defendant Whitehill’s grading of Chancellor’s math tests. Defendant Whitehill’s assessment of Chancellor’s tests erroneously portrayed lower scores than he had attained. C. G. Wims had taken a test in religion and earned 100%, which increased his final grade to 81. Plaintiff later received an email from Defendant Whitehill stating that she reevaluated.
Later on, Defendant Whitehill informed Plaintiff that she returned a portion of the grades to C. G. Wims and that the cleaning staff disposed of the remaining grades. Defendant Whitehill emphatically stated that she had NO RECORD of the grades that the cleaning staff discarded. C. G. Wims was devastated; he was so distraught that he did not want to attend School on Friday because the honor roll ceremony would occur, and he would not be able to participate. It follwos; C. G. Wims was denied the opportunity to participate in the Honor Roll Society Ceremony.
There was a high substantial risk of foreseeable harm that would follow Defendants’ breach of their duites herein. For instance, Plaintiff’s children would be subjected to discrimination, which would negatively impact their learning experience.
It follows; consequential and incidental to Defendants’ actions and/or inactions, Plaintiff and her minor children experienced continued and ongoing harassment, racial discrimination in Saint Patrick Interparish School. It is worth noting that that the harassment included inappropriate conduct that is repeated enough, or serious enough, to negatively impact a student’s educational, physical, or emotional well-being.
Plaintiff had ongoing counseling to address her depression and anxiety caused by Defendants’ conduct and the resulting harassing educational environment. Also, Plaintiff children have also been deprived of a standard childhood education due to Defendants’ conduct and the resulting educational environment.
It is also worth noting that Plaintiff’s minor children have also been damaged by missed educational opportunities and their future earning capabilities have been damaged by Defendants’ conduct and the resulting hostile educational environment.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs suffered as set forth in this Complaint. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result of the unlawful acts, omissions, policies, and practices of the Defendants as alleged herein, unless, Plaintiff is granted the relief she requests. The need for relief is critical because the rights at issue are paramount under the Constitution of the United States.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, request that this Court grant her the following reliefs:

Compensatory damages in the amount of 7,000,000.00. against each Defendant, jointly and severally
Adjudge and declare that the conditions, acts, omissions, policies, and practices of Defendants and their agents, officials, and employees are in violation of the human rights of Plaintiff;
Enjoin Defendants, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in concert, from continuing the unlawful acts, conditions, and practices described in this Complaint;
Award Plaintiff, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the costs of this suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses;
Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff request trial by jury on all issues so triable

Respectively submitted this ________ day of ______________2021

By: ______________________

PERSONA

(Plaintiff Pro se)

ADDRESS

VERIFICATION

I, PERSONA, the Plaintiff in the above Complaint verified that the statements contained in this Complaint are true to the best of my knowledge

The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe it to be true.

I declare (or certify) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Respectively submitted this ________ day of ______________2021

By: ______________________

PERSONA

(Plaintiff Pro se)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on the ____________day of _______________, 2021, that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint were served by placing a copy in the United States Postal Service, with postage prepaid, addressed upon the following:

SERVICE ON:

PERSONA

ADDDRESS

__________________

PERSONA

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.

MOTION IN RESPONSE

Recent Posts

Quick Links

Legal Info

Services

Contact Us