A federal judge from the Eastern District of Missouri has dismissed as moot the claim of a high school basketball player and his mother, who alleged that one of the bylaws of the Missouri State High School Activities Association (MSHSAA) results in a racially discriminatory practice.
Plaintiff Justin Mathews-Williams and his mother, Dequila Mathews-Caldwell, also sought financial compensation for the fact that Justin may have missed out on receiving an athletic scholarship because he was suspended the last few games, an argument that was similarly dismissed.
Specifically, Justin was suspended from the Francis Howell North High School basketball team after being charged with a misdemeanor. The high school’s decision was made pursuant to Section 2.2.2 of the MSHSAA Bylaws, which states that a student who has “committed an act for which charges may or have been filed” is not eligible to participate in interscholastic activities.
In seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs argued that Section 2.2.2 is racially discriminatory “in intent and purpose because people of color are arrested more frequently than others. He sought an order requiring he be allowed to participate in Senior Night and in the remaining games of the season. In his contemporaneously-filed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, he also requested monetary relief and a declaratory judgment that MSHSAA’s application of Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 (delineating authority of local school to, among other things, set more restrictive citizenship standards) is illegal racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Following a hearing on the TRO request, the court directed that Justin be allowed to appear, with certain limitations, with the basketball team for Senior Night. The court, however, ordered that his suspension from playing in basketball games was to remain in full force and effect. Francis Howell played its last basketball game of the season Feb. 24, 2018.
Four days later, MSHSAA filed an amended motion to dismiss, arguing, in relevant part, that the case is moot. Six days later, Francis Howell and Michael Janes moved to dismiss on the grounds of mootness and, as to the claims of Dequila Mathews-Caldwell, for lack of standing.
After initially agreeing with the defendants that the claim is moot, the court considered exceptions to the doctrine.
One exception centers on whether a “controversy is capable of repetition, yet evading review where both of the following two requirements are met: (1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subjected to the same action again.” Stevenson v. Blytheville School Dist. No. 5, 762 F.3d 765, 769 (8th Cir. 2014). The court concluded that the plaintiffs “advance no argument as to why their claim for injunctive or declaratory relief is not now moot.”
Next, the court turned to the bid for monetary relief.
“Francis Howell and Janes argued that the only allegations supporting a claim for monetary damages are that Justin might miss out an athletic scholarship if not permitted to play in the few remaining games,” wrote the court.
“The plaintiffs do not disagree with this characterization of their claim, which the Court finds to be too speculative to withstand the unopposed motions to dismiss. In Governor Wentworth Regional School Dist. v. Hendrickson, 201 Fed.Appx. 7, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2006) (per curiam), the court dismissed an appeal challenging on First Amendment grounds a student’s suspension from school. The parents’ claim for damages based on a theory that the suspension would adversely affect their son’s employment prospects was determined to be too speculative to prevent the appeal from becoming moot on the student’s graduation. Id. See also Schell v. OXY USA, Inc., 814 F.3d 1107, 1115 (10th Cir. 2016) (finding claim for damages arising from allegations of hypothetical future harm too speculative to save appeal from mootness); CMR D.N. Corp. v. City of Philadelphia, 703 F.3d 612, 622 (3rd Cir. 2013) (noting that ‘[c]laims for damages are retrospective in nature — they compensate for past harm’) (emphasis added); Brown v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 169 Fed. Appx. 537, 541 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (rejecting as too speculative plaintiffs claim for damages based on allegations that documents in her personnel file could destroy her career). Cf. McFarlin, 980 F.2d at 1210 (student’s claim for compensatory damages for civil rights violated resulting from school board’s banning her from basketball team without providing her a hearing was not rendered moot by her graduation).”
Dequila Mathews Caldwell and Justin Mathews-Williams v. Missouri State High School Activities Association et al.; E.D. Mo.; Case No. 4:18-CV-261 RLW, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46428; 3/21/18
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Christopher B. Bent, LEAD ATTORNEY, LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER BENT, LLC, St. Louis, MO. (for defendants) Mallory V. Mayse, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, MAYSE LAW OFFICE, Columbia, MO. Kathryn B. Forster, LEAD ATTORNEY, CROTZER AND ORMSBY, LLC, Clayton, MO.
