UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION GARY B., et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD SNYDER, et al., Defendants.  ______________________________/ Case No. 2:16-cv-13292 HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [60]

Plaintiffs are minor children who attend, or attended, public schools in Detroit. They have alleged that the conditions of their schools are so poor, and so inadequate, that they have not received even a minimally adequate education. Specifically, they alleged they have been denied access to literacy on account of their races, in violation of their rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. They brought suit against the Michigan state officials they believe to be responsible. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, principally because they believe Plaintiffs sued the wrong parties. Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs' alleged harm is not cognizable under the Constitution. Many amici weighed in on the matter and the Court held a hearing. For the reasons below, the Court must grant the motion and dismiss the case.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court may grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss if the complaint fails to allege facts "sufficient 'to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,' and to 'state a

Case 2:16-cv-13292-SJM-APP ECF No. 112 filed 06/29/18 PageID.2738 Page 1 of 40

 

2 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"

Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc.

, 579 F.3d 603, 609 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)). The Court will view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, presume the truth of all well-pled factual assertions, and draw every reasonable inference in favor of the non-moving party.

Bassett v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008). If "a cause of action fails as a matter of law, regardless of whether the plaintiff's factual allegations are true or not," then the Court must dismiss it.

Winnett v. Caterpillar, Inc.

, 553 F.3d 1000, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009).

DISCUSSION

The Complaint contains five counts: Count One is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleges the deprivation of a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Count Two is also a § 1983 claim under the Due Process Clause and alleges that Defendants, as state actors, created or increased a danger. Count Three is also § 1983 action and alleges disparate treatment on the basis of race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Count Four is brought under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and related federal regulations and alleges that Defendants used federal funds to intentionally discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of race. Count Five seeks a judicial declaration that Defendants violated the Constitution and federal law.

Case 2:16-cv-13292-SJM-APP ECF No. 112 filed 06/29/18 PageID.2739 Page 2 of 40

 

3 Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Counts Two and Four,

see

 ECF 64, PgID 1445, n.11; ECF 109, PgID 2590–91, so two avenues of relief remain: the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint on two grounds. First, they insist that they cannot be sued. According to Defendants, the State of Michigan and its officials never operated Plaintiffs' schools, so they are the wrong parties to enjoin. Moreover, Defendants contend that they are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Second, Defendants argue that access to literacy is not a constitutionally protected right, so the failure to provide such access cannot constitute a valid claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. They also dispute the allegation that Plaintiffs have been treated differently on account of their races.  A description of the background of the matter will help to illuminate the posture of the suit, and the background will in turn help answer whether Defendants are indeed the proper parties to be sued. Thus, the Court will begin with a description of those facts. I. Who Controls Detroit Schools? Plaintiffs assert, "[t]he State of Michigan is ultimately responsible for complying with all constitutional mandates regarding public education. But it has particular responsibility for the schools in Detroit, as it has controlled the [Detroit Public Schools] (and now, [Detroit Public Schools Community District]) schools since 1999." ECF 1, PgID 46, ¶ 61. Accordingly, Plaintiffs hold Defendants "responsible for the education of all Michigan public school students and for the system of Michigan public schools[.]"

Id.

 at 126, ¶ 200. Defendants counter that though the State has a supervisory role in education and eventually appointed an emergency manager, the State never had "direct control"

Case 2:16-cv-13292-SJM-APP ECF No. 112 filed 06/29/18 PageID.2740 Page 3 of 40