Leduc v. Mio AuSable School District, Mio Board of Education, Dennis Niles and Timothy Miller

Case 1:23-cv-11364-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1, PageID.
1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 1 of 34
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
KOBI LEDUC, Case No: 23- cv -

Hon.
Plaintiff,
Vs.
MIO AUSABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT;

MIO BOARD OF EDUCATION;
DENNIS NILES, in his individual
capacity; and TIMOTHY MILLER in his
individual capacity, jointly and severally
Defendants
_________________________________________/
DUSTIN C. HOFF (P78246)
DAVID E. CHRISTENSEN (P45374)
CHRISTENSEN LAW
Attorneys for Plaintiff
25925 Telegraph Road, Ste. 200
Southfield, MI 48033
(248) 213-4900/Fax (248) 213-4901
dhoff@davidchristensenlaw.com
dchristensen@davidchristensenlaw.com
________________________________________/
COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Plaintiff, KOBI LEDUC, by and through his attorneys,
CHRISTENSEN LAW, and states as follows:
1
Case 1:23-cv-11364-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 06/08/23 Page 2 of 34
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action arises under the United States Constitution and under the
laws of the United States Constitution, particularly under the provisions of the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under the
laws of the United States, particularly the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 of the United
States Code, §§ 1983 and 1988, and under the statutes and common law of the State
of Michigan.
2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1331 and 1343 as to Plaintiff’s federal law claims.
3. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) as the claims arise out of the nucleus of operative
facts common to Plaintiff’s federal claims.
4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) as all
of the events giving rise to this cause of action occurred in Oscoda County, in the
Eastern District of Michigan.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff, Kobi LeDuc, is a resident of the City of Mio in the County of
Oscoda, State of Michigan.
6. Kobi LeDuc at the time of the events giving rise to this action, on
November 19, 2018, was a seventh-grade student at Mio AuSable Schools.
2
7. Defendant Mio AuSable School District is a public education
institution located in the County of Oscoda, State of Michigan.
8. Defendant Mio AuSable Board of Education is made up of elected
individuals responsible for adopting the bylaws of the school district and those
functions designated under Michigan Law.
9. Defendant Mio AuSable School Board at the time of the events giving
rise to this action, was comprised of members Fullerton, Holzwarth, Hunter, Irelan,
Lashley, LaVigne, and Mitchell.
10. Defendant Dennis Niles, in his individual capacity, was at all times
relevant here a school principal who was responsible for controlling and overseeing
the high school and middle school which includes overseeing the staff, students,
student welfare, student safety, teachers, students, counselors, and other employees.
Defendant Niles was at all times relevant hereto operating under the color of state
law. Said Defendant participated in the unconstitutional use of excessive force by
virtue of the restraint/suffocation of Plaintiff as described herein and also failed to
render much needed medical care thereafter, or to intervene to stop the suffocation.
11. Defendant Timothy Miller, in his individual capacity, was at all times
relevant here a high school teacher who was involved in overseeing the high school
and middle school which includes, staff, students, student welfare, student safety,
and other employees. Defendant Miller was at all times relevant hereto operating
3
under the color of state law. Said Defendant participated in the unconstitutional use
of excessive force by virtue of the restraint/suffocation of Plaintiff as described
herein and also failed to render much needed medical care thereafter, or to intervene
to stop the suffocation.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs.
13. On November 19, 2018, Kobi LeDuc was a seventh-grade student at
Mio AuSable schools.
14. Prior to the incident alleged here, Defendant Dennis Niles had a history
of physically assaulting and abusing children under his care as the principal at Mio
AuSable Schools, including applying unconstitutionally excessive force and
violating their Fourth Amendment rights. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 – this
exhibit is being filed in the traditional manner via a CD after this pleading has
been accepted by this honorable court) See below (Exhibit 2- Still Shots from
Video)
4
15. Defendants Mio Ausable School District and Mio Ausable Board of
Education had actual knowledge of Dennis Niles’ abuse of children, use of physical
violence against students for disciplinary purposes, and the use of unlawful physical
restraints on students prior to November 19, 2018, and took no disciplinary action
against him.
16. Defendant Niles’ actions, as described above, were previously recorded
and known to Mio Ausable School District and Mio Ausable Board of Education.
17. On November 19, 2018, Defendant Dennis Niles used physical
restraint, corporal punishment, physical abuse, prone restraint, choking, and other
aggressive maneuvers as disciplinary measures against Kobi LeDuc in violation of
his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. (Attached hereto as
5
Exhibit 3 – this exhibit is being filed in the traditional manner via a CD after
this pleading has been accepted by this honorable court) See below (Exhibit 4-
Still Shots from Video)
18. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Timothy Miller was present and
witnessed the unconstitutional actions of Defendant Dennis Niles and failed to take
any action to intervene to protect Plaintiff Kobi LeDuc.
19. During a search of Kobi LeDuc’s locker, Defendant Dennis Niles
slammed Plaintiff into a locker and then placed Kobi LeDuc in the prone position
while kneeling on him, with his knee forcefully into his back and chest, pressing
against his back with such force that he was deprived of oxygen and lost
consciousness. This is consistent with a “prone restraint,” which the Michigan
Revised School Code defines as “the restraint of an individual facedown.” MCL
380.1307h(n).
6
20. Defendant Dennis Niles continued to kneel on, restrain, and apply force
to Kobi LeDuc while in the prone position for an additional 2 minutes and 23
seconds.
21. Defendant Timothy Miller continued to be present throughout the
time period of Defendant Dennis Niles’ unconstitutional actions and failed to
intervene to protect Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
7
22. Kobi LeDuc was forced to be in the prone restraint position by
Defendant Dennis Niles and choked for nearly five minutes.
23. Defendant Dennis Niles choked Kobi LeDuc with such aggressive
force that it caused hemorrhaging of the blood vessels that resulted in bruising on
his neck.
24. Defendant Timothy Miller was present throughout the time period of
Defendant Dennis Niles’ unconstitutional actions and failed to intervene to protect
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
25. In 2012, the U.S. Department of Education stated, “Prone restraints or
other restraints that restrict breathing should never be used because they can cause
serious injury or death.”
26. The Michigan Revised School Code, specifically MCL 380.1307b,
prohibits school personnel in the public schools of Michigan “under all
8
circumstances, including emergency situations” from the use of the prone
restraint.
27. The Michigan Revised School Code, specifically MCL 380.1307b,
further states that “all of the following practices are prohibited for school personnel
in the public schools of this state under all circumstances, including emergency
situations:
(a) Corporal punishment, as defined in section 1312 1.

(b) The deprivation of basic needs.
(c) Child abuse.
(h) Any restraint that negatively impacts breathing.
(j) Physical restraint, other than emergency physical restraint.
(k) Any other type of restraint.
28. The Michigan Department of Education requires that “If school
personnel, in the course of an emergency response, find themselves in a prone
restraint, they must take immediate steps to end the prone restraint.”
Education were required to adopt a policy in compliance with MCL 380.1307b to
preclude the use of prone restraints.
30. The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights defines
physical restraint on students with disabilities: “refers to a personal restriction that
1
(1) As used in this section, "corporal punishment" means the deliberate infliction
of physical pain by hitting, paddling, spanking, slapping, or any other physical
force used as a means of discipline. MCL 380.1312
9
immobilizes or reduces the ability of a student to move his or her torso, arms, legs,
or head freely.”
31. The U.S. Department of Education on May 15, 2012, issued a
“Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document” that recommends that school
districts never use physical restraint for disciplinary purposes.
Education were required to provide Defendant Dennis Niles and Defendant Timothy
Miller with adequate training regarding the risks and prohibitions of physical
restraint against students in accordance with Michigan law.
Education were required to provide Defendant Dennis Niles and Defendant Timothy
Miller with “comprehensive training” that includes, but is not limited to:
a). De-escalation techniques; techniques to identify pupil behaviors that may

trigger emergency situations.
b) Related safety considerations, including information regarding the
increased risk of injury to pupils and school personnel when seclusion or
restraint is used.
c) Instruction in the use of emergency seclusion and emergency physical
restraint.
e) Identification of events and environmental factors that may trigger
emergency situations.
f) Instruction on the state policy on the use of physical restraint.
g) Description and identification of dangerous behaviors.
h) Methods for evaluating the risk of harm to determine whether the use of
emergency seclusion or emergency physical restraint is warranted.
i)Types of restraint.
j) The risk of using seclusion or restraint in consideration of a pupil’s known
and unknown or mental health conditions or psychological limitations.
10
k) How to monitor for and identify physical signs of distress and the
implications for pupils generally and for pupils with particular physical or
mental health conditions or psychological limitations.
34. Defendant Dennis Niles and Defendant Timothy Miller were required
to receive and implement awareness and comprehensive training.
35. Under Michigan law, it was the obligation of Defendants Mio Ausable
School District and Mio Ausable Board of Education to ensure that all educational
staff, including Defendant Dennis Niles and Defendant Timothy Miller, had
completed awareness training and comprehensive training and were adequately
trained regarding the prohibitions against using restraints upon students.
36. As a result of actions and inactions by Defendants Mio Ausable School
District and Mio Ausable Board of Education in failing to develop and implement
appropriate guidelines, regulations, training, and staff education, Defendants Dennis
Niles and Timothy Miller applied unconstitutional and reprehensible force upon
Plaintiff Kobi LeDuc that resulted in unconsciousness, hemorrhaging, bruising,
mental anguish, and a violation of his rights under the United States Constitution
and Michigan law. Plaintiff seeks all damages that he is entitled to under applicable
law, including compensatory damages, non-economic damages, interest, costs,
attorney fees, and punitive damages.
37. As a result of the unconstitutional conduct of Defendant Dennis Niles,
unconstitutional and legally reprehensible force was applied to Plaintiff Kobi LeDuc
11
that resulted in unconsciousness, hemorrhaging, bruising, mental anguish, and a
violation of his rights under the United States Constitution and Michigan law.
Plaintiff seeks all damages that he is entitled to under applicable law, including
compensatory damages, non-economic damages, interest, costs, punitive damages,
exemplary damages, and attorney fees.
38. As a result of the unconstitutional conduct of Defendant Timothy
Miller, unconstitutional and legally reprehensible force was applied to Plaintiff Kobi
LeDuc that resulted in unconsciousness, hemorrhaging, bruising, mental anguish,
and a violation of his rights under the United States Constitution and Michigan law.
Plaintiff seeks all damages that he is entitled to under applicable law, including
compensatory damages, non-economic damages, interest, costs, punitive damages,
exemplary damages, and attorney fees.
COUNT I: DEFENDANT NILES’ VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH

AMENDMENT RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983
40. At all times relevant, Defendant Niles was an employee of a public
school, acting as a public school employee, and acting within the scope of his
employment and under the color of state law.
12
41. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was afforded the constitutional rights
under the Fourth Amendment of the Unites States Constitution to be free from the
use of unnecessary, unreasonable, illegal, and excessive force.
42. At all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendant Niles owed a
duty to the public, but especially Plaintiff, to act in a lawful and reasonable manner,
and to avoid the use of unnecessary, unreasonable, illegal and excessive force, in
violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendments of the
United States Constitution.
43. On November 19, 2018, Defendant Niles’ use of physical force, hitting,
punching, body slamming, restraining, and other aggressive maneuvers against
Plaintiff Kobi LeDuc, as described above, were excessive and in violation of
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.
44. Defendant Niles’ actions constituted unnecessary, unreasonable, illegal
and excessive force in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as violations of law of the
State of Michigan and policies and procedures that were or should have been in
effect at Mio Middle School.
45. Defendant Niles’ conduct as described herein was objectively
unreasonable and any reasonable governmental official in Defendant Niles’ position
at all times relevant to this cause of action would have known that the use of physical
13
force under the circumstances as they were presented to him was unnecessary,
unreasonable, illegal, and excessive.
46. Defendant Niles is not entitled to qualified immunity.
47. Plaintiff did not pose any reasonable immediate threat to the safety of
Defendant Niles at the time of Defendant’s unconstitutional conduct. Defendant
Niles’ use of force was not justified at its inception or any point thereafter.
48. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions,
Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain into the future, injuries and
damages as described throughout this Complaint including, without limitation,
unconsciousness, hemorrhaging, bruising, mental anguish, emotional distress,
humiliation, embarrassment, pain, suffering and incurring attorney fees. Plaintiff
seeks all damages that he is entitled to under applicable law, including compensatory
damages, non-economic damages, punitive damages, interest, costs, and attorney
fees.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter a
judgment in his favor against Defendants and award an amount in excess of Seventy-
Five Thousand ($75,000) Dollars, exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney fees, as
well as an award of punitive damages.
14
COUNT II: DEFENDANT NILES’ VIOLATION OF

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SUBSTANTIVE DUE
PROCESS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983
50. At all times relevant, Defendant Niles was an employee of a public
51. At all times relevant to this cause of action, Plaintiff had the rights
under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution not to be deprived of life or liberty without due process.
52. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was afforded rights under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to
personal security and bodily integrity, including the right to be free from physical
abuse at the hands of a school employee and particularly when it is not administered
for any pedagogical purpose.
53. At all times relevant, Plaintiff had the right under the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free
from arbitrary government conduct that lacks all socially redeeming value.
54. Defendant Niles engaged in physical abuse of Plaintiff, which
constituted unnecessary, unreasonable, illegal, and excessive force, in violation of
Plaintiff’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
15
United States Constitution to personal security and bodily integrity, and to be free
from state actions that deprives a person of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, as well as violations of the criminal laws of the State of Michigan
and violation of the policies and procedures that were or should have been in effect
at Mio Middle School.
55. Those rights were at all times relevant to this cause of action clearly
established in that any reasonable governmental official in Defendant Niles' position
would have known that such rights were being violated when Defendant Niles
inflicted physical abuse on Plaintiff as alleged herein.
56. That the acts of physical and emotional abuse by Defendants Niles to
Plaintiff, under all circumstances relevant, caused injury so severe, was so
disproportionate to the need presented, and was so inspired by malice rather than
mere carelessness or excess of zeal that it amount to a brutal and inhumane abuse of
official power that is shocking to the conscience.
57. The acts of physical and emotional abuse by Defendant Niles toward
Plaintiff under all circumstances relevant lacked any and all pedagogical purpose or
justification and lacked any socially redeeming value.
58. Defendant Niles when engaging in the conduct as set forth above had
reasonable opportunity to deliberate various alternatives and did not face the need to
make a hurried judgment.
16
59. The physical and emotional abuse of Plaintiff by Defendant Niles under
all circumstances relevant amounts to deliberate indifference to the risk that Plaintiff
would suffer harm and to Plaintiff’s health and safety of which Defendant Niles was
specifically aware and disregarded.
60. Defendant Niles’ conduct as described herein was objectively
unreasonable and any reasonable governmental official in Defendant Niles’ position
at all times relevant to this cause of action would have known that the use of physical
force under the circumstances as they were presented to him was unnecessary,
unreasonable, illegal, and excessive.
61. Defendant Niles is not entitled to qualified immunity.
fees.
17
COUNT III: DEFENDANT MILLER’S VIOLATION OF THE

FOURTH AMENDMENT
RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983
64. At all times relevant, Defendant Miller was an employee of a public
65. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was afforded the constitutional rights
under the Fourth Amendment of the Unites States Constitution to be free from the
use of unnecessary, unreasonable, illegal, and excessive force.
66. At all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendant Miller owed a
duty to the public, but especially Plaintiff, to act in a lawful and reasonable manner,
and to avoid the use of unnecessary, unreasonable, illegal and excessive force, in
violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment of the
United States Constitution.
67. At all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendant Miller owed a
duty to the public, but especially Plaintiff, to intervene to prevent the deprivation of
a constitutional right when he observed or had reason to know that excessive force
18
would be or was being used and he had both the opportunity and means to the prevent
the harm from occurring.
68. On November 19, 2018, Defendant Miller’s use of physical force,
hitting, punching, body slamming and other aggressive maneuvers against Plaintiff
Kobi LeDuc, as described above, were excessive and in violation of Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.
69. On November 19, 2018, Defendant Miller’s failure to intervene to
prevent the unconstitutional excessive force being applied by Defendant Niles, as
described above, was excessive and in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights
under the Fourth Amendment.
70. Defendant Miller’s actions constituted unnecessary, unreasonable,
illegal and excessive force, in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the
Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as violations of law of
the State of Michigan and policies and procedures that were or should have been in
effect at Mio Middle School.
71. Defendant Miller’s conduct as described herein was objectively
unreasonable and any reasonable governmental official in Defendant Miller’s
position at all times relevant to this cause of action would have known that the use
of physical force under the circumstances as they were presented to him was
unnecessary, unreasonable, illegal, and excessive.
19
72. Defendant Miller is not entitled to qualified immunity.
73. Plaintiff did not pose any reasonable immediate threat to the safety of
Defendant Miller at the time of Defendant’s unconstitutional conduct. Defendant
Miller’s use of force or his failure to intervene were not justified at its inception or
any point thereafter.
fees.
20
COUNT IV: DEFENDANT MILLER’S VIOLATION OF THE

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SUBSTANTIVE DUE
PROCESS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983
76. At all times relevant, Defendant Miller was an employee of a public
77. At all times relevant to this cause of action, Plaintiff had the rights
under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution not to be deprived of life or liberty without due process.
78. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was afforded rights under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to
personal security and bodily integrity, including the right to be free from physical
abuse at the hands of a school employee and particularly when it is not administered
for any pedagogical purpose.
79. At all times relevant, Plaintiff had the right under the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free
from arbitrary government conduct that lacks all socially redeeming value.
80. Defendant Miller engaged in physical and emotional abuse of Plaintiff,
which constituted unnecessary, unreasonable, illegal, and excessive force, in
violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
21
Amendment of the United States Constitution to person security and bodily integrity,
and to be free from state actions that deprive a person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, as well as violations of the criminal laws of the State of
Michigan and violation of the policies and procedures that were or should have been
in effect at Mio High School.
81. Those rights were at all times relevant to this cause of action clearly
established in that any reasonable governmental official in Defendant Miller’s
position would have known that such rights were being violated when physical and
emotional abuse was inflicted on Plaintiff as alleged herein.
82. That the acts of physical and emotional abuse by Defendant Miller of
Plaintiff under all circumstances relevant caused injury so severe, was so
disproportionate to the need presented, and was so inspired by malice rather than
mere carelessness or excess of zeal that it amounted to a brutal and inhumane abuse
of official power that is shocking to the conscience.
83. The acts of physical and emotional abuse by Defendant Miller toward
Plaintiff under all circumstances relevant lacked any and all pedagogical purpose or
justification and lacked any socially redeeming value.
84. Defendant Miller, when engaging in the conduct as set forth above, had
reasonable opportunity to deliberate various alternatives and did not face the need to
make a hurried judgment.
22
85. The physical and emotional abuse of Plaintiff under all circumstances
relevant amounts to deliberate indifference to the risk that Plaintiff would suffer
harm to Plaintiff’s health and safety of which Defendant Miller was specifically
aware and disregarded.
86. Defendant Miller’s conduct as described herein was objectively
unreasonable and any reasonable governmental official in Defendant Miller’s
position at all times relevant to this cause of action would have known that the use
of physical force under the circumstances as they were presented to him was
unnecessary, unreasonable, illegal, and excessive.
87. Defendant Miller is not entitled to qualified immunity.
fees.
23
COUNT V – MUNICIPAL/SUPERVISORY LIABILITY

PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – DEFENDANTS
MIO AUSABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND MIO BOARD OF EDUCATION
90. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, Defendants Mio Ausable School
District and Mio Board of Education owed Plaintiff certain duties to properly hire,
supervise, monitor, and train its employees so as to not violate the constitutional
rights of students, and Plaintiff in particular, as alleged throughout this Complaint,
and to take proper measures to report, prevent, or otherwise protect students such as
Plaintiff in the event that such violations may occur.
91. Defendants Mio Ausable School District and Mio Board of Education
are liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in that their policies, procedures, regulations,
and customs, or that their failure to enact policies, procedures, regulations, and
customs caused and were the driving force behind the violation of Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights as alleged throughout this Complaint.
24
at all times relevant to this cause of action had knowledge of Defendant Niles’
propensities toward violent, unconstitutional aggression toward students.
with such knowledge condoned, encouraged, or otherwise knowingly acquiesced to
such conduct, which created substantial risks to Plaintiff that resulted in or was the
driving force behind, the constitutional violations as alleged herein.
with such knowledge condoned, encouraged, or otherwise knowingly acquiesced
such conduct and thus acted with deliberate indifference to the substantial risks that
Plaintiff would be physically and emotionally assaulted and abused as set forth
throughout this Complaint.
were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s constitutional and other rights by failing
to promulgate a policy and failing to properly train personnel and employees to
prevent the unconstitutional, unlawful, and tortious mistreatment of the students,
including Plaintiff, as alleged throughout this Complaint.
were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s constitutional and other rights by failing
to supervise or otherwise take action to prevent the constitutional violations as
25
alleged throughout this Complaint when they had knowledge that Defendant Niles
did and would engage in conduct that created the substantial risk that Plaintiff would
be physically and emotionally abused and assaulted, which violated Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights as alleged in this Complaint.
97. Defendants Mio Ausable School District and Mio Board of Education,
through their policies, procedures, regulations, or customs, or lack thereof, breached
their duties, which amounted to reckless and/or deliberate indifference toward the
general public, and toward Plaintiff, specifically, in the following ways, including,
but not limited to:
• Failing to properly train its employees regarding the proper use

of reasonable and necessary force under the circumstances
presented;
• Failing to enact or provide training on proper policies regarding
the recognition of the rights to be free from restraints, including
prone restraint;
• Failing to enact or provide training on proper policies regarding
allowing adults such as Defendant Niles to lay hands on students
or apply restraints to students;
• Hiring and/or the retention of employees whose character and
personality pose a potential danger to the public in general and
Plaintiff in particular;
• Failure to adequately monitor the conduct and behavior of its
employees in general, but specifically Defendant Niles, relative
to the propensity to engage in physically aggressive and abusive
behavior such that, despite written policies against such abuse,
failure to sufficiently take action to prevent the occurrence of
abuse of Plaintiff has led to the formation of a custom that such
abuse will be encouraged and tolerated;
26
• Failure to have proper policies, procedures, and training to

address the danger of using physical force or restraints against
individuals, including Plaintiff;
• Failure to properly screen, supervise, discipline, transfer,
counsel, or otherwise control employees, including Defendant
Niles, who are known or should have been known to engage in
improper use of physical force and/or restraints;
• Failure to supervise and/or train employees to prevent violation
of students’ constitutional rights;
• Sanctioning the use of physical abuse of students by failing to
adequately discipline or terminate employees who are known to
have violated the constitutional rights of students on prior
occasions, including but not limited to Defendant Niles;
• Having a custom, policy, or practice of tolerating the violation of
constitutional rights by employees;
• Ratifying the violation of constitutional rights by employees;
• Employing and retaining improperly trained employees and
administrators; and
• Other acts and omissions which may be learned through the
course of discovery.
98. The failures and/or actions set forth above to take action to prevent the
physical abuse, restraint, and application of excessive force by Defendants Niles and
Miller were a common pattern and practice among employees and personnel of
deliberate indifference such that it constituted a policy or custom and those were
followed and enforced by supervisors and administrators at Defendants Mio Ausable
School District and Mio Board of Education.
99. The above-enumerated actions, failures, and/or inactions constituted
deliberate indifference to the danger to Plaintiff’s health, safety, and violations of
27
their constitutional rights by Defendants Niles and Miller, including, but not limited
to, those alleged in this Complaint.
fees.
COUNT VI – GROSS NEGLIGENCE

DEFENDANTS NILES AND MILLER
102. Defendants Niles and Miller owed Plaintiff a duty to act in a reasonable
manner and not in a grossly negligent manner, to act prudently and with reasonable
28
care, and to avoid the use of unnecessary, unjustified, illegal, and unreasonable,
excessive physical and emotional abuse.
103. Defendants Niles and Miller were grossly negligent and acted so
recklessly as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern that injury would result,
and/or acted in an unnecessary or willful or wanton manner toward Plaintiff and was
indifferent to the physical and emotional abuse inflicted on Plaintiff, and
nevertheless maliciously carried out those acts, and thus breached the above duties
in a number of way.
104. Defendants Niles and Miller’s conduct, which amounted to gross
negligence, was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries.
105. Defendants Niles and Miller are not entitled to immunity under
Michigan law.
106. As the direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions,
damages, non-economic damages, exemplary damages, interest, costs, and attorney
fees.
29
COUNT VII – BATTERY

108. The conduct of Defendants Niles and Miller, as set forth throughout this
Complaint, constitutes a willful and harmful or offensive touching of Plaintiff.
109. Defendants Niles and Miller intended the act that caused the willful and
harmful or offensive touching of Plaintiff.
110. Defendants Niles and Miller’s conduct, as set forth throughout this
Complaint, was undertaken during the course of their employment and when they
were acting, or reasonably believed that they were acting, within the scope of their
authority, was not undertaken in good faith but rather with malice and was
discretionary.
111. Defendants Niles and Miller are not entitled to governmental immunity
under Michigan law.

30
fees.
COUNT IIX - BATTERY

114. The surrounding circumstances of Defendants Niles and Miller’s
conduct created a well-founded apprehension in Plaintiff of imminent harmful and
offensive contact and injury.
115. The surrounding circumstances of Defendant Niles and Miller’s
conduct created, from Plaintiff’s perspective and belief, an apparent present ability
for Defendants to accomplish harmful and offensive contact and injury.
31
discretionary.
under Michigan law.
fees.
32
COUNT IX – INTENTION INFLICTION

OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS -DEFENDANTS NILES AND MILLER
120. The surrounding circumstances of Defendants Niles and Miller’s
conduct toward Plaintiff, as set forth above, was intentional or reckless, extreme,
outrageous, and of such character as to be intolerable in a civilized society.
121. The conduct of Defendants Niles and Miller was for an ulterior motive
or purpose, including but not limited to, to cause Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional
distress.
122. The conduct of Defendants Niles and Miller has caused and will
continue to cause Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.
discretionary.
under Michigan law.

33
fees.
Respectfully Submitted,
CHRISTENSEN LAW
By: ________________________
DUSTIN C. HOFF (P78246)
DAVID E. CHRISTENSEN (P45374)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
25925 Telegraph Road, Suite 200
Southfield, MI 48033
(248)213-4900/Fax (248)213-4901
Dated: June 8, 2023 dhoff@davidchristensenlaw.com
34

Leduc v. Mio AuSable School District, Mio Board of Education, Dennis Niles and Timothy Miller

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leduc v. Mio AuSable School District, Mio Board of Education, Dennis Niles and Timothy Miller

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:23-cv-11364-TLL-PTM ECF No. 1, PageID.

1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 1 of 34

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

KOBI LEDUC, Case No: 23- cv -

MIO AUSABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT;

NOW COMES Plaintiff, KOBI LEDUC, by and through his attorneys,

CHRISTENSEN LAW, and states as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1331 and 1343 as to Plaintiff’s federal law claims.

3. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims

facts common to Plaintiff’s federal claims.

4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) as all

Eastern District of Michigan.

5. Plaintiff, Kobi LeDuc, is a resident of the City of Mio in the County of

Oscoda, State of Michigan.

November 19, 2018, was a seventh-grade student at Mio AuSable Schools.

7. Defendant Mio AuSable School District is a public education

institution located in the County of Oscoda, State of Michigan.

8. Defendant Mio AuSable Board of Education is made up of elected

functions designated under Michigan Law.

Lashley, LaVigne, and Mitchell.

law. Said Defendant participated in the unconstitutional use of excessive force by

virtue of the restraint/suffocation of Plaintiff as described herein and also failed to

of excessive force by virtue of the restraint/suffocation of Plaintiff as described

to stop the suffocation.

12. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs.

13. On November 19, 2018, Kobi LeDuc was a seventh-grade student at

Mio AuSable schools.

AuSable Schools, including applying unconstitutionally excessive force and

violating their Fourth Amendment rights. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 – this

16. Defendant Niles’ actions, as described above, were previously recorded

17. On November 19, 2018, Defendant Dennis Niles used physical

aggressive maneuvers as disciplinary measures against Kobi LeDuc in violation of

Still Shots from Video)

any action to intervene to protect Plaintiff Kobi LeDuc.

19. During a search of Kobi LeDuc’s locker, Defendant Dennis Niles

consciousness. This is consistent with a “prone restraint,” which the Michigan

Revised School Code defines as “the restraint of an individual facedown.” MCL

21. Defendant Timothy Miller continued to be present throughout the

time period of Defendant Dennis Niles’ unconstitutional actions and failed to

intervene to protect Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

22. Kobi LeDuc was forced to be in the prone restraint position by

Defendant Dennis Niles and choked for nearly five minutes.

Defendant Dennis Niles’ unconstitutional actions and failed to intervene to protect

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

25. In 2012, the U.S. Department of Education stated, “Prone restraints or

serious injury or death.”

26. The Michigan Revised School Code, specifically MCL 380.1307b,

prohibits school personnel in the public schools of Michigan “under all

circumstances, including emergency situations” from the use of the prone

27. The Michigan Revised School Code, specifically MCL 380.1307b,

(a) Corporal punishment, as defined in section 1312 1.

28. The Michigan Department of Education requires that “If school

personnel, in the course of an emergency response, find themselves in a prone

Education were required to adopt a policy in compliance with MCL 380.1307b to

preclude the use of prone restraints.

30. The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights defines

physical restraint on students with disabilities: “refers to a personal restriction that

31. The U.S. Department of Education on May 15, 2012, issued a

“Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document” that recommends that school

districts never use physical restraint for disciplinary purposes.

restraint against students in accordance with Michigan law.

a). De-escalation techniques; techniques to identify pupil behaviors that may