James Doe, on behalf of himself and 77 other similarly situated individual minors next friend John Doe Plaintiff- Appellant
v.
Fort Zumwalt R-II School District Defendant Matthew M. Hansen, in his official capacity as a Former Teacher of the Fort Zumwalt R-II School District; Bernard Dubray, Superintendent of the Fort Zumwalt R-II School District, Official capacity only; Mike Clemens, Assistant superintendent of the Fort Zumwalt R-II School, Official capacity only; Patty Corum, Assistant superintendent of the Fort Zumwalt R-II School District, Official capacity only; Jackie Floyd, Assistant superintendent of the Fort Zumwalt R-II School District, Official capacity only; Greg Solomon, Employee of the Fort Zumwalt R-II School District, Official capacity only; Nelda Wetzel, Principal of Lewis & Clark Elementary School, Official capacity only; Jill Hutchenson, Principal of Dardenne Elementary School, Official capacity only; John and Jane Doe, Principals or principal designees in charge of supervision at the Cuivre River summer camp, Official capacity only; Dan Hadfield, 5th grade teacher from Progress South Elementary School, Official capacity only; John and Jane Doe, 5th grade teachers in charge of supervision at the Cuivre River summer camp, Official capacity only Defendants - Appellees
Submitted: January 17, 2019
Appeal
from United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri - St. Louis
Before
BENTON, MELLOY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
BENTON, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
On
behalf of his minor son, John Doe represents a class of
current and former students of the Fort Zumwalt R-II School
District who were videotaped in the nude by Matthew M. Hansen
at the District's overnight camp. Doe sued Hansen in his
individual and official capacities under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for statutory and constitutional violations. He also
brought § 1983 claims against several District
administrators, school principals, and teachers (the District
Defendants) in their official capacities for constitutional
violations. The district court[1] entered default judgment against
Hansen in his individual capacity, and summary judgment for
the District Defendants. Doe v. Hansen, 2018 WL
2223679 (E.D. Mo. May 15, 2018). Doe appeals. Having
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
I.
Hansen
was a teacher in the Fort Zumwalt R-II School District. The
District sponsors an overnight outdoor camp for fifth graders
that is staffed by District employees. It assigned one
teacher to each cabin. It also assigned a teenage student
"camp counselor" to each cabin in order to assist
the teacher and report improper behavior. Hansen staffed the
camp as a teacher, assigned to a cabin. In 2013, he pled
guilty to child pornography-related charges. He admitted
using a hidden camera to videotape fifth-grade students in
the nude inside the cabins from 2007 to 2011.
During
this time, the District's policies addressed Hansen's
conduct. They prohibited teachers from "[e]ngaging in
any conduct that violates Board policies . . . [or]
constitutes criminal behavior." They required teachers
to "[m]aintain courteous and professional relationships
with pupils" and prohibited them from "mak[ing]
advances toward, or engag[ing] in any sexual relationship
with a district student." In 2008, the District adopted
an "Audio and Visual Recording" policy explicitly
prohibiting the use of recording equipment "where the
occupants would have a reasonable expectation of
privacy." The District also conducted criminal
background checks on employees, including Hansen. It did not
have knowledge of Hansen's conduct until his arrest in
2012.
In
2016, Doe sued on behalf of a class of current and former
students whom Hansen videotaped. The class asserted claims
against Hansen and the District under the Child Abuse Victims
Rights Act of 1986 (CAVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The District filed an answer. Hansen did
not. The district court entered default judgment against
Hansen for liability under CAVRA. Doe then filed two amended
complaints. The Second Amended Complaint asserts claims
against Hansen in his individual and official capacities
under § 1983 for violations of CAVRA and the
constitutional right of privacy. It also includes § 1983
claims for failure to supervise and train against seven
current and former District employees (and unnamed John and
Jane Doe defendants) responsible for camp supervision (the
District Defendants) in their official capacities. The
District filed an answer.
Doe
dismissed the claims against Hansen in his individual
capacity. Doe then moved to enforce against the District the
default judgment against Hansen under CAVRA for statutory
damages. The district court denied the motion, clarifying
that the default judgment against Hansen was in his
individual capacity and is not enforceable against the
District (which responded to the claims against Hansen in his
official capacity).
The
District moved for summary judgment on all counts. Doe
renewed his motion to enforce the default judgment against
the District and, in the alternative, moved for summary
judgment on the CAVRA count against Hansen. The district
court denied Doe's motions and granted summary judgment
to the District. Doe appeals the grant of summary judgment
only for the failure to train and supervise under §
1983. He also appeals the denial of his motion for default
judgment against the District.
II.
This
court reviews de novo a grant of summary judgment, viewing
the evidence most favorably to the nonmoving party.
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042
(8th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Summary judgment is proper if
there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a).
"It
is well-settled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment protects the liberty interest of a child in public
school from sexual abuse." P.H. v. School Dist. of
Kansas City, 265 F.3d 653, 658 (8th Cir. 2001). Doe sued
the District Defendants in their official capacities under
§ 1983 for violating the Due Process Clause by failing
to adequately supervise and train staff and students. A suit
against the District Defendants in their official capacity is
a suit against the District. See Brewington v.
Keener, 902 F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir. 2018). A
municipality like the District "cannot be held liable on
a respondeat superior theory, that is, solely
because it employs a tortfeasor" like Hansen. Szabla
v. City of Brooklyn Park, 486 F.3d 385, 389 (8th Cir.
2007) (en banc), citing Monell v. Department of Social
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Where a municipal
policy or custom "itself violates federal law,
or directs an employee to do so, resolving [ ] issues of
fault and causation is straightforward." Board of
Cty. Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997).
However, in cases like this, where the plaintiff claims that
"municipal action lawful on its face caused an employee
to ...