Maxine Mckinney Case Summary
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HUNTINGTON
: CASE NO. CV2016-2242
Maxine McKinney, et al. : Plaintiffs, : JUDGE: R. PERSIE : vs. :
: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR : SUMMARY DISPOSITION
Huntington County School District, et al. : WITH MEMORANDUM AND Defendants. : AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT :
Plaintiffs, Maxine McKinney and James McKinney, personally and as father of Maxine McKinney (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Court to grant summary disposition in favor of Maxine McKinney and James McKinney pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. Introduction
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the …show more content…
In such situation, there can be “no genuine issue as to any material fact,” since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). “[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment, the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). Summary judgment is improper if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
The defendants have the burden of proof on the issue regarding regulation of a student’s speech that occurs outside of school grounds. However, defendants have further failed to demonstrate that the speech that occurred outside of school grounds is within the reach of speech that a school may exert control over. Consequently, summary judgment should be entered in favor of Maxine …show more content…
By applying the Nexus test, Maxine would likely prevail because the test is overly
In Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist., the Third Circuit addressed a situation that is similar to Maxine’s. Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 205, 207 (3rd Cir. 2011). In Layshock, the student, Justin Layshock, used his grandmother’s computer, outside of school hours to create a fake Myspace profile of his high school principle. Id. The fake profile described the principal in a vulgar and crude way, such as referring to him as a “big whore” and a “big fag.” Id. at 208.
Because Justin allowed other students in the school district to “friend” the Myspace profil, news of the profile “spread like wildfire” throughout the student body. Id. Once the principle established that Justin created the profile, an informal hearing was held and he was found guilty of violating the school’s discipline code. Id. at 209-210. As punishment, Justin was suspended for ten-days, placed in an alternative education program, banned from extracurricular activities and not allowed to participate in his graduation ceremony. Id. at
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HUNTINGTON
: CASE NO. CV2016-2242
Maxine McKinney, et al. : Plaintiffs, : JUDGE: R. PERSIE : vs. :
: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR : SUMMARY DISPOSITION
Huntington County School District, et al. : WITH MEMORANDUM AND Defendants. : AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT :
Plaintiffs, Maxine McKinney and James McKinney, personally and as father of Maxine McKinney (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Court to grant summary disposition in favor of Maxine McKinney and James McKinney pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. Introduction
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the …show more content…
In such situation, there can be “no genuine issue as to any material fact,” since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). “[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment, the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). Summary judgment is improper if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
The defendants have the burden of proof on the issue regarding regulation of a student’s speech that occurs outside of school grounds. However, defendants have further failed to demonstrate that the speech that occurred outside of school grounds is within the reach of speech that a school may exert control over. Consequently, summary judgment should be entered in favor of Maxine …show more content…
By applying the Nexus test, Maxine would likely prevail because the test is overly
In Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist., the Third Circuit addressed a situation that is similar to Maxine’s. Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 205, 207 (3rd Cir. 2011). In Layshock, the student, Justin Layshock, used his grandmother’s computer, outside of school hours to create a fake Myspace profile of his high school principle. Id. The fake profile described the principal in a vulgar and crude way, such as referring to him as a “big whore” and a “big fag.” Id. at 208.
Because Justin allowed other students in the school district to “friend” the Myspace profil, news of the profile “spread like wildfire” throughout the student body. Id. Once the principle established that Justin created the profile, an informal hearing was held and he was found guilty of violating the school’s discipline code. Id. at 209-210. As punishment, Justin was suspended for ten-days, placed in an alternative education program, banned from extracurricular activities and not allowed to participate in his graduation ceremony. Id. at