• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDAPENSACOLA DIVISION
MINOR I. DOE, et al.;Plaintiffs,v.SCHOOL BOARD FOR SANTAROSA COUNTY, FLORIDA; et al.;Defendants. / No.: 3:08-cv-361 MCR/EMT
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TODEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Come now Plaintiffs, by and through the undersigned counsel, andrespond to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 19 and 20),
1
and urge thisHonorable Court to deny these motions in their entirety, and argue asfollows:
I
NTRODUCTION
 
Over the past decade, the Santa Rosa County School Board has cultivateda series of well-established, though unwritten, policies and customs aimed at
1
Defendant H. Frank Lay filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 20) separate from the otherDefendants. (Doc. 19). In that motion, Lay adopted and incorporated the arguments of theremaining Defendants’ motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum. Lay Mot. toDismiss, ¶4. Accordingly, this brief opposes both motions.
 
Page 2 of 25
promoting religion in District schools. Acting under the authority andsanction granted by these District-wide policies and customs, officials acrossthe District have repeatedly subjected students, including Plaintiffs, toreligiously coercive activities and events. Hoping to portray the events atPace High as isolated incidents, Defendants have made multiple efforts toexclude from this lawsuit the officially sponsored religious activities andevents at schools other than Pace High. First, Defendants argued that theycould not possibly respond in time to discovery meant to uncover evidenceof these activities. This Court alleviated that problem by grantingDefendants additional time to comply with Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.Defendants also moved to strike particular paragraphs of the Complaint thatallege their own acknowledgement that these widespread policies or customsexist within the District. Plaintiffs’ response to that motion, filed separately,explains why Defendants’ request should be denied. Now, Defendants seek to dismiss the case based on Plaintiffs’ purported lack of standing tochallenge events at schools other than Pace High. But there is one majorhitch: Defendants’ motion hinges on a mischaracterization of Plaintiffs’Establishment Clause claim.
 
Page 3 of 25
Plaintiffs allege that the School District has established a series of unwritten, District-wide policies or customs authorizing District schools andschool officials to 1) sponsor and promote prayer at school events, includinggraduation; 2) organize, promote, and support religious baccalaureateservices; 3) hold school-sponsored activities at places of worship even whenalternative secular venues are available; and 4) proselytize students.Plaintiffs further allege that the religious activities and events occurring atPace High take place pursuant to these District-wide policies or customs.Accordingly, Plaintiffs challenge both the constitutionality of the District-wide, unwritten policies generally, and as they are applied by schoolofficials at Pace High School.Plaintiffs do not, as Defendants contend, allege personal injury from, orseek to challenge, specific applications of these policies or customs atDistrict schools other than at Pace High. Nor do Plaintiffs seek to assertclaims on behalf of students enrolled at those other schools. Nevertheless,as explained below, the promotion of religion at other District schools iscentral to Plaintiffs’ claim; it evinces the existence of the unwritten, District-wide policies or customs implemented at Pace High, and it is probative of the general content, parameters, and application of these policies.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...