Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-10388
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon, Judge Briccetti dismissed claims against the “School Board of Mount Vernon,” added two entities, and ordered service on four defendants.
Terri Simmons; the “School Board of Mount Vernon”; the Putnam/Northern Westchester Board of Cooperative Educational Services; the Mount Vernon City School District; Nicole Murphy; and Penny Beckman.
What happened
In Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon, Terri Simmons, who was representing herself, brought claims under federal disability and civil-rights laws and state law. She alleged that defendants discriminated against her son because of his disability and race and failed to provide educational services or another school placement after his suspension.
The court dismissed Simmons’s claims against the “School Board of Mount Vernon,” added the Putnam/Northern Westchester Board of Cooperative Educational Services and the Mount Vernon City School District as defendants, and directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve those entities and Nicole Murphy and Penny Beckman. The court also extended the service deadline and instructed Simmons to notify the court of any address change.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not decide the underlying discrimination claims. He certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon · No. 7:19-cv-10388
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 10, 2019
Background
Terri Simmons, proceeding without a lawyer, asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and state law. She alleged that defendants discriminated against her son because of his disability and race. Her claims arose from the alleged suspension of her son from Fox Meadow Middle School/High School and the alleged failure of Mount Vernon educational officials to provide educational services or an alternative school placement afterward.
Simmons named the City of Mount Vernon, the “School Board of Mount Vernon,” the County of Putnam, Nicole Murphy, and Penny Beckman. In the complaint’s body, she also referred to the County of Westchester and the Board of Education of Mount Vernon. The court stated that she clearly intended to assert claims against the Putnam/Northern Westchester Board of Cooperative Educational Services (PNW BOCES) and the Mount Vernon City School District.
Court’s actions
Because Simmons was representing herself, the court construed the complaint as asserting claims against PNW BOCES and the Mount Vernon City School District. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the court directed the Clerk of Court to add PNW BOCES as a defendant and replace the “School Board of Mount Vernon” with the Mount Vernon City School District. The court stated that this addition and amendment were without prejudice to defenses those entities might assert.
The court dismissed Simmons’s claims against the “School Board of Mount Vernon.” It directed the Clerk to prepare service paperwork and summonses for PNW BOCES, the Mount Vernon City School District, Murphy, and Beckman, and to deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. Because Simmons had been allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court explained that she could rely on the court and the Marshals Service to complete service. It extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses were issued.
The court also instructed Simmons to notify it if her address changed and stated that the action could be dismissed if she failed to do so. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
What the order did not decide
This was an order about identifying defendants, service of process, and appeal-related fee status. The court did not decide whether the alleged discrimination or failure to provide educational services violated any federal or state law.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.