Georgia State Conference of The Naacp et al v. Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners et al

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM with Brief In Support

N.D. Ga.December 2, 2016

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION GEORGIA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, as an organization; et al. Plaintiffs, v. GWINNETT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; et al. Defendants. ____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:16-cv-02852-AT MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS CAROLE BOYCE, DANIEL SECKINGER, MARY KAY MURPHY, ROBERT MCCLURE AND LOUISE RADLOFF, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6), Defendants Carole Boyce, Daniel Seckinger, Mary Kay Murphy, Robert McClure, and Louise Radloff, sued in their official capacities as members of the Gwinnett County Board of Education, jointly move for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims against them. As shown more fully in Defendants’ supporting memorandum, dismissal of claims in the Amended Complaint is warranted because (1) these Defendants are not political subdivisions of the State and (2) the official capacity claims asserted in the Amended Complaint are duplicative of the claims made against the Gwinnett Case 1:16-cv-02852-AT Document 48 Filed 12/02/16 Page 1 of 3 -2- County School District. WHEREFORE, these Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter an Order dismissing them from Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. /s/ A. Lee Parks A. Lee Parks, Jr. Georgia Bar No. 563750 Andrew Y. Coffman Georgia Bar No. 173115 lparks@pcwlawfirm.com acoffman@pcwlawfirm.com PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 75 Fourteenth Street, 26 th Floor Atlanta, GA 30309 (404) 873-8000 (Phone) (404) 873-8050 (Fax) /s/ E. Victoria Sweeny E. Victoria Sweeny Georgia Bar No. 694663 W. Creighton Lancaster Georgia Bar No. 142351 vsweeny@thompson-sweeny.com wcl@thompson-sweeny.com THOMPSON, SWEENY, KINSINGER & PEREIRA, P.C. P.O. Drawer 1250 Lawrenceville, GA 30046 (770) 963-1997 (Phone) (770) 822-2913 (Fax) Counsel for Defendants Gwinnett County School District and Members of the Board of Education Case 1:16-cv-02852-AT Document 48 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 3 -3- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 5.1(C) I hereby certify that on December 2, 2016 I electronically filed the foregoing MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS CAROLE BOYCE, DANIEL SECKINGER, MARY KAY MURPHY, ROBERT MCCLURE AND LOUISE RADLOFF IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send e-mail notification of such filing to all attorneys of record. I further certify that the foregoing has been prepared in a Times New Roman 14 point font, one of the font and point selections approved by the Court in Local Rule 5.1(C). /s/ A. Lee Parks A. Lee Parks, Jr. Case 1:16-cv-02852-AT Document 48 Filed 12/02/16 Page 3 of 3 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION GEORGIA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP; et al. Plaintiffs, v. GWINNETT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; et al. Defendants. ____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:16-cv-02852-AT BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY DEFENDANTS CAROLE BOYCE, DANIEL SECKINGER, MARY KAY MURPHY, ROBERT MCCLURE AND LOUISE RADLOFF Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants Carole Boyce, Daniel Seckinger, Mary Kay Murphy, Robert McClure and Louise Radloff (collectively the “Board Members”), move the Court to dismiss them from this action. Plaintiffs assert a claim under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §1973, against the individual members of the Board Member of Education in their official capacities. Because there is no proper official capacity claim to be asserted against members of a board under § 2, and because the claim is Case 1:16-cv-02852-AT Document 48-1 Filed 12/02/16 Page 1 of 8 -2- duplicative of the claim against the Gwinnett County School District (“School District”) 1 , the official capacity claims should be dismissed. I. PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS The Plaintiffs sued each of the five (5) current Board Members only in their official capacity. Doc. 25 at ¶ 28. Plaintiffs have not asserted any claims against the Board Members in their individual capacity. Id. Plaintiffs do not seek to remove any Board member, or allege any wrongdoing by any Board Member in their individual capacities. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint does not seek any restraint on their individual or official actions, such as calling a meeting, introducing legislation, or calling for a vote. In fact, Plaintiffs do not seek any relief with respect to the individual Board Members’ performance of their official duties as elected members of the Gwinnett County Board of Education. Plaintiffs only seek declaratory and injunctive relief and expenses of litigation including attorney fees. None of the remedies sought could be obtained from the Board Members, either individually or collectively. II. ARGUMENT Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act [VRA] states that “[n]o voting 1 The School District is misnamed as the Gwinnett County Public Schools in the Amended Complaint. Case 1:16-cv-02852-AT Document 48-1 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 8 -3- qualification . . . standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any state or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a) (emphasis added). Section 2 of the VRA applies only to the Defendant School District, and not to the Board Members as it is a “political subdivision” within the meaning of § 2 of the VRA. See United States v. Uvalde Consol. Independent School Dist., 625 F.2d 547, 554 (5th Cir. 1980) (Section 2 “only applies to a state or political subdivision”). The Board Members should be dismissed from this action because Plaintiffs fail to state any claim for relief under § 2 that can be implemented by them. Moreover, Plaintiffs can prove no set of facts that would entitle them to relief against the Board Members that is not coextensive with relief the School District can provide if so ordered. The School District is the proper party, and Plaintiffs’ inclusion of the Board Members as parties in their official capacity is duplicative, unnecessary and unauthorized by § 2. A. Board Members Are Not Political Subdivisions Within the Meaning of Section 2. The enforcement of Plaintiffs rights and/or remedies under § 2 of the VRA does not rely on action or inaction on the part of the Board Members. Rather, the School District is the only entity that can be required to seek implementation of a Case 1:16-cv-02852-AT Document 48-1 Filed 12/02/16 Page 3 of 8 -4- remedial redistricting plan ordered by the Court. Since a remedy can only be implemented by a political subdivision created by the State, the presence of “official capacity” defendants is neither required nor permitted by § 2. See United States v. Uvalde, supra. Since the Plaintiffs cannot secure any relief from the Board Members that is distinct from the relief the School District can provide, the Board Members are not necessary parties to this action and should be dismissed. This case does not present a situation where a department head or policy-maker acts alone in an official capacity. The members of the Board of Education have no authority to act on their own with respect to voting districts or elections in general, because they lack the legal authority to change or otherwise alter the voting districts at issue which were created by legislative Act of the Georgia Assembly. Assuming, arguendo, that this Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for relief in its entirety, such relief cannot by law extend to the Board Members. For example, Individual state actors are not personally liable for costs and attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (e). See Connor v. Winter, 519 F.Supp. 1337, 1344 (S.D. Miss. 1981) (concluding that an award of attorneys’ fees would be paid from the state treasury when state executives were sued in their official capacity). Since the enforcement of Plaintiffs’ rights and/or remedies under § 2 of the VRA does not require any action or inaction on the part of the Board Members, Case 1:16-cv-02852-AT Document 48-1 Filed 12/02/16 Page 4 of 8 -5- they should be dismissed. B. Claims against the School District and the Board Members in Their Official Capacity Are Duplicative and the Board Members Should Be Dismissed. Even if naming individual members of a board were proper, the claims are duplicative since it is the same as naming the government body they serve, in this case the School District. See Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2036, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 n. 55 (1978) (observing “official-capacity suits generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent”); Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25, 112 S.Ct. 358, 361, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991) (noting that “the real party in interest in an official-capacity suit is the governmental entity and not the named official”). Actions against governmental officials in their official capacities are “deemed a suit against the entity that [they] represent[s] and are ‘essentially a complaint against [that entity]. Because suits against a municipal officer sued in his official capacity and direct suits against municipalities are functionally equivalent, there no longer exists a need to bring official-capacity actions against local government officials, because local government units can be sued directly.” See White v. City of Birmingham, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68202, *48 (N.D. Ala. May 27, 2015)(citing Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 776 Case 1:16-cv-02852-AT Document 48-1 Filed 12/02/16 Page 5 of 8 -6- (11th Cir. 1991)(emphasis added). Plaintiffs are in no way prejudiced by the dismissal of the Board Members as remedies sought by the Plaintiffs can be afforded by the School District. CONCLUSION The Board Members should be dismissed as Defendants as their inclusion as parties is redundant, unnecessary and unwarranted given the express language of § 2 which limits its reach to “any state or political subdivision.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a). Because the Board Members are not political subdivisions within the purview of § 2 of the VRA, the Amended Complaint against the Board Members must be dismissed. /s/ A. Lee Parks A. Lee Parks, Jr. Georgia Bar No. 563750 Andrew Y. Coffman Georgia Bar No. 173115 lparks@pcwlawfirm.com acoffman@pcwlawfirm.com PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 75 Fourteenth Street, 26 th Floor Atlanta, GA 30309 (404) 873-8000 (Phone) (404) 873-8050 (Fax) Case 1:16-cv-02852-AT Document 48-1 Filed 12/02/16 Page 6 of 8 -7- /s/ E. Victoria Sweeny E. Victoria Sweeny Georgia Bar No. 694663 W. Creighton Lancaster Georgia Bar No. 142351 vsweeny@thompson-sweeny.com wcl@thompson-sweeny.com THOMPSON, SWEENY, KINSINGER & PEREIRA, P.C. P.O. Drawer 1250 Lawrenceville, GA 30046 (770) 963-1997 (Phone) (770) 822-2913 (Fax) Counsel for Defendants Gwinnett County School District and Members of the Board of Education Case 1:16-cv-02852-AT Document 48-1 Filed 12/02/16 Page 7 of 8 -8- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 5.1(C) I hereby certify that on December 2, 2016 I electronically filed the foregoing BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY DEFENDANTS CAROLE BOYCE, DANIEL SECKINGER, MARY KAY MURPHY, ROBERT MCCLURE AND LOUISE RADLOFF with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send e-mail notification of such filing to all attorneys of record. I further certify that the foregoing has been prepared in a Times New Roman 14 point font, one of the font and point selections approved by the Court in Local Rule 5.1(C). /s/ A. Lee Parks A. Lee Parks, Jr. Case 1:16-cv-02852-AT Document 48-1 Filed 12/02/16 Page 8 of 8