Jane Doe v. Becky Guffin


United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-3269 ___________________________ Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of their minor child, A.A.; John Doe, individually and on behalf of their minor child, A.A.; Jessica Doe, individually and on behalf of their minor child, B.B.; Jill Doe, individually and on behalf of their minor child, C.C.; Jeff Doe, individually and on behalf of their minor child, C.C.; Janet Doe, individually and on behalf of her minor child, D.D.; Julie Doe, individually and on behalf of her minor child, E.E. Plaintiffs - Appellees James Doe, individually and on behalf of their minor child, B.B. Plaintiff v. Aberdeen School District Defendant Becky Guffin, in her individual and official capacity; Camille Kaul, in her individual and official capacity; Renae Rausch, in her individual and official capacity; Colleen Murley, in her individual and official capacity; Michael Neubert, in his individual and official capacity; Carrie Weisenburger, in her individual and official capacity Defendants - Appellants ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Northern ____________ Submitted: May 11, 2022 Filed: August 1, 2022 ____________ Before ERICKSON, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ ERICKSON, Circuit Judge. This case involves allegations that Carrie Weisenburger restrained, secluded, and abused her students as a teacher in a special education classroom. The students’ parents sued Weisenburger, along with Aberdeen School District (“ASD”) and a host of its administrative officials, on their children’s behalf under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied Weisenburger’s assertion of qualified immunity from claims for infringing the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of three students, identified as A.A., B.B., and C.C. We affirm in part and reverse in part. I. BACKGROUND The facts remain disputed, but we recount them in the light most favorable to the students at this stage. See Walton v. Dawson, 752 F.3d 1109, 1114 n.1 (8th Cir. 2014). Throughout the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years, Weisenburger taught in the Enrich II classroom at May Overby Elementary School. A.A., B.B., and C.C. attended her class for third and fourth grades. Each child is a student with disabilities who had an individualized education program (“IEP”) in effect. While the students vary in their ability to communicate, none could vocalize their daily experiences in school to others. A.A. has been diagnosed with both autism spectrum disorder and moderate cognitive disability. A behavior intervention plan signed by her mother on October 15, 2015 recorded that A.A. had run away from recess and academic settings, acted -2- aggressively toward her peers, refused to comply with teacher directions, and often distracted her classmates. Most of the allegations about A.A.’s mistreatment stem from Weisenburger’s use of the “little room.” The little room measures 10 feet by 10 feet and is situated in a different part of the school than the Enrich II classroom, just off the gymnasium. There is a window on the door and a small table, a whiteboard, and cupboards inside. May Overby staff employed the room for purposes …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals