JUSTIN RIDDLE v. OMAHA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (2024)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendant Omaha Public Schools's (“OPS”) Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to State a Claim and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Filing No. 6). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants in part and denies in part OPS's motion.

I. BACKGROUND 1

Riddle, a longtime resident of Omaha, Nebraska, has been involved in the OPS community for decades. Having graduated from OPS himself, Riddle has now raised three children who have attended OPS. Two of those children have since graduated and one still attends high school within the school system.

Riddle refers to himself as “an active participant in [the] school board meetings” of OPS. Among other things, he has attended board meetings to express his disagreement with OPS's equity initiatives. Riddle particularly disagrees with various ideas expressed by Barry Thomas (“Thomas”), OPS's then-Director of Equity and Diversity, which he believes demonstrate OPS is implementing controversial “critical race theory” programs “without transparently informing parents.”

Riddle's complaint centers around events arising out of his attendance at one such board meeting. On August 2, 2021, Riddle attended a board meeting to express his disagreement with the alleged programs and Thomas's “messaging.” Near the outset of that meeting, board member and then-president Dr. Shavonna Holman (“Holman”) explained how the well-attended public comment session would proceed that day. In particular, Holman informed the audience, “We ask that you please spell your name and state your address before you begin your public comment.” Though Holman did not elaborate at that time, that requirement had recently been set forth by Nebraska law and implemented by board policy. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1412(3); Omaha Bd. of Educ., Internal Bd. Policy 8346(E) (providing that members of the public must identify themselves and give their address unless they are OPS students or otherwise exempted “to protect their security” after giving notice on their “Request to be Heard form”).

Multiple members of the public spoke before Riddle took the podium. One of those individuals was Cheryl Adamson (“Adamson”), Riddle's mother and a longtime public-school teacher. Adamson introduced herself to the OPS Board, but—when asked to give her address—she responded that “her husband wouldn't appreciate that.” Adamson moved on to give her statement after clarifying to the board that she worked for the school system.

Looking down at her phone, Adamson preluded her presentation by explaining that her experience as a teacher has taught her to “be prepared, whether that is with antidotal [sic] notes, observation, and/or audio and visual resources,” when meeting with others “to ensure the success of each and every student.” Then, holding her phone to the podium microphone, Adamson played a video of Thomas's statements. Those statements were amplified by the microphone, beginning, “Social responsibility as we've defined it requires that we disrupt inequitable institutional and individual practices.”

The audio continued for about eighteen seconds until it abruptly stopped. As Adamson adjusted the microphone and attempted to fix the problem, a board member spoke up to tell her that they “need[ed] her public comment but not an audio of someone else's comment.” The audio restarted for a few more seconds until it again went silent, this time apparently from the microphone being turned off.

The board members—who sat in front of the speaker's podium at a long desk—remained silent while Adamson tried to fix the microphone. Just as the audio temporarily returned, Riddle approached the podium to help Adamson. After messing around with the phone a while, Riddle held it up to the microphone as the audio played for several more seconds. The board members spoke quietly amongst each other and gestured but did not address Adamson or Riddle. Instead, a security officer came to the podium and allegedly forced them to sit down “and not play the audio.”

At this point, Riddle alleges that Holman lamented, “Oh my god. I'm not letting this guy go next.” Riddle claims Holman then called several other speakers instead of him even though “he should have been after” Adamson.

Following the comments of two more speakers, Riddle walked to the podium for his turn. Riddle identified himself and stated that he lived in Omaha. He then refused to state his address, saying that information was “irrelevant” and that he was “not required to give it.” Holman immediately clarified that it was a “statutory requirement,” to which Riddle interrupted to argue that it was “not a state law.”

Speaking over Holman, Riddle said, “My time will start now.” In response, Holman promptly asked for the podium microphone to be cut. The board members looked to each other for answers to the predicament and eventually asked for a five-minute recess. By then, however, Riddle had begun walking around the podium and speaking loudly, continuing on about the equity initiatives and “plead[ing] his case that he should not be silenced.”

Holman called on security to remove Riddle just moments later. Riddle asserts he made efforts to demonstrate “he was not posing a threat” and that Holman therefore removed him “in an effort to prevent exposure of” Thomas. He also states that the board “arbitrarily” and “selectively” enforced” rules—including the address requirement—on himself and Adamson, presumably in retaliation for their dissenting messages.

Following the August 2nd meeting, Riddle went on to attend other public meetings at which he reports the board more clearly explained the rule regarding the disclosure of speaker's addresses “at the beginning of each meeting.” Riddle learned his lesson and thereafter became compliant with that requirement, even though he views it “as a measure the district uses to chill speech.” For the board's part, Riddle alleges he was barred from accessing “the board's official social media accounts” after expressing his “dissenting views.” In particular, he asserts OPS Superintendent Cheryl Logan, Thomas, and Holman simultaneously blocked him from their accounts.

Riddle also alleges that OPS “conspired with the Omaha Police Department [“OPD”] to intimidate [him] through multiple phone calls and investigations in retaliation for his speech. Among those complained-of actions is a call from OPD Lieutenant Charles Otto (“Otto”), who manages OPS's school resource officers. Riddle also says that Holman sought and received a protection order against him “despite the lack of proper evidence, presentation or legal standards.” These events, Riddle claims, are just a fraction of the “deliberate and coordinated effort[s] to silence [him], as well as others who spoke critically of the” board, as he maintains that others who spoke out about controversial topics were harassed as well.

Riddle asserts OPS's alleged “extensive pattern of unconstitutional conduct to retaliate [against] and silence” dissenters has violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In particular, he believes its actions against him constitute unjustified viewpoint-based discrimination and have deprived him of his right to due process. Riddle also claims OPS engaged in a conspiracy to deprive him of his constitutional rights by coordinating with OPD “to intimidate and retaliate against [him] and others.”

Riddle initially brought these claims against OPS in the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska (Case No. 23cv455, Filing No. 1). After OPS removed the lawsuit to this Court, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and moved to dismiss his complaint, Riddle voluntarily dismissed the action, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

Just two weeks later, Riddle brought this action against OPS generally alleging the same claims he raised before. On January 10, 2024, OPS moved to dismiss his complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). Riddle opposes dismissal on either ground, asserting “the evidence is black and white” and his complaint should not be dismissed “based on a few well put-together words” (Filing No. 9).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

1. Rule 12(b)(1)

Riddle bears the burden of establishing he has standing to bring his claims under Article III of the United States Constitution. See Young Am. Corp. v. Affiliated Comput. Servs. (ACS), Inc., 424 F.3d 840, 843 (8th Cir. 2005). “To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged action, and it must be likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Cross v. Fox, 23 F.4th 797, 800 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting Hawse v. Page, 7 F.4th 685, 688 (8th Cir. 2021)). Riddle's “complaint need not make a large number of allegations relating to the injury suffered: ‘general factual allegations of injury resulting from [OPS's] conduct may suffice’ to establish standing.” Young Am. Corp, 424 F.3d at 843 (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 560, 561 (1992)).

OPS's standing argument is limited and appears to make a “facial” attack on Riddle's complaint. See Davis v. Anthony, Inc., 886 F.3d 674, 679 (8th Cir. 2018) (explaining that a facial attack is one in which the “defendant asserts that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support subject matter jurisdiction” (quoting Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 193 (4th Cir. 2009))). In analyzing a facial attack, the Court must restrict “itself to the face of the pleadings” and grant “the non-moving party ․ the same protections” given in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Id. (quoting Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 n.6 (8th Cir. 1990)).

2. Rule 12(b)(6)

To withstand OPS's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Riddle's complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Powell v. Minn. Life Ins. Co., 60 F.4th 1119, 1121-22 (8th Cir. 2023) (quoting Usenko v. MEMC LLC, 926 F.3d 468, 472 (8th Cir. 2019)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”). The Court construes Riddle's pro se complaint liberally and holds it to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Rinehart v. Weitzell, 964 F.3d 684, 687-88 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam)). It does not, however, excuse any failure to “comply with substantive and procedural law,” Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984), nor the basic requirement that a complaint must “allege sufficient facts to state a facially plausible claim to relief,” Rinehart, 964 F.3d at 688 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

B. Standing

OPS briefly argues that Riddle “lacks standing to bring his Section 1983 action to the extent the claim relies on constitutional violations by OPS of other persons’ purported rights.” Beyond this assertion, which is sandwiched into OPS's challenge to Riddle's conspiracy claim, OPS launches no further challenges to Riddle's complaint under Rule 12(b)(1).

Certainly, Riddle cannot rely on such third-party allegations alone to establish standing. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 114 (1976) (explaining why “[o]rdinarily, one may not claim standing in this Court to vindicate the constitutional rights of some third party” (quoting Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 255 (1953))). But those alleged incidents are admissible and important context that aid Riddle in plausibly asserting his § 1983 claims against OPS, which inherently rely on evidence of constitutional violations against others. See generally Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y.C., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); cf. McDonough v. Anoka County, 799 F.3d 931, 946 (8th Cir. 2015) (explaining that allegations of procedurally barred incidents “may still be considered in assessing the plausibility of” the plaintiff's claims). The Court is further satisfied that Riddle's allegations regarding actions taken against him meet the “relatively modest” burden to establish Article III standing at this stage. See Johnson v. Griffin, 69 F.4th 506, 510 (8th Cir. 2023). OPS's motion for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is therefore denied.

C. Municipal Liability

Title 42 section 1983 generally provides that “[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured.” Municipalities and local governing bodies “can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where [ ] the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 690. They cannot, however, be held liable based merely on an “employer-employee relationship with” an individual who caused the plaintiff's injury. Id. at 691-92.

For his claims to pass muster, Riddle must therefore allege and eventually prove he has been injured by constitutional violations as a result of “action pursuant to an official [ ] policy” or unofficial custom of OPS. Lee v. Pine Bluff Sch. Dist., 472 F.3d 1026, 1029 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 691); see also Kiefer v. Isanti County, 71 F.4th 1149, 1152 (8th Cir. 2023) (stating that “a plaintiff may establish municipal liability if the violation resulted from (1) an official municipal policy, (2) an unofficial custom, or (3) a deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise” (internal quotation omitted)). OPS contends that Riddle fails to allege any “OPS policy, custom, or failure to train or supervise its employees that could serve as the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violations” he has suffered.

Riddle argues his allegations are sufficient to “plausibly establish an unofficial policy or custom” under Monell. To allege an unofficial custom giving rise to § 1983 liability, Riddle must eventually be able to show the following: “(1) the existence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by the governmental entity's employees; (2) deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of such conduct by the governmental entity's policymaking officials after notice to the officials of that misconduct; and (3) that plaintiff was injured by acts pursuant to the governmental entity's custom.” Kiefer, 71 F.4th at 1153 (quoting Snider v. City of Cape Girardeau, 752 F.3d 1149, 1160 (8th Cir. 2014)). Riddle falls short of meeting these requirements as he has failed to adequately allege that OPS employees have engaged in a “continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct.” Id.

Putting aside whether the actions allegedly taken against Riddle himself were unconstitutional, Riddle's allegations regarding any pattern of violations against others are largely too conclusory and vague to eke out a claim of widespread unconstitutional conduct. See Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 62 (2011) (“A pattern of similar constitutional violations by [ ] employees is ordinarily necessary to demonstrate [the] deliberate indifference” of a municipality.) (internal citation omitted); Johnson v. Douglas Cnty. Med. Dep't, 725 F.3d 825, 829 (8th Cir. 2013) (stating that “multiple incidents involving a single plaintiff could establish a ‘custom’ [only] if some evidence indicates that the incidents occurred over a course of time sufficiently long to permit notice of, and then deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of, the conduct by policymaking officials”). Among those allegations are that (1) the board cut off his mother's microphone “when she attempted to play [Thomas's] statements,” (2) the police and board members have “reached out to [others] or their employers for opposing CRT, Mask Mandates, etc.,” (3) police “went to search” the house of a student who attended but did not speak at a board meeting, and (4) community members’ “repeated requests for various types of information” about OPS policies and programs have gone unanswered.

Even assuming the truth of these allegations, there are a litany of issues that make them deficient to state a claim of an unofficial custom under Monell. First, Riddle does not adduce enough facts to allege these incidents resulted in constitutional violations. For instance, while Riddle contends officers harassingly attempted to search a student's room after he attended a board meeting, Riddle's description of his call with Otto details that the officers sought the student's consent to search his room. Importantly, asking an individual for consent to search their person, belongings, or residence does not violate the constitution, and conducting a search pursuant to such consent is frequently permissible. See United States v. Kennedy, 35 F.4th 1129, 1134 (8th Cir. 2022) (“Even in the absence of reasonable suspicion, an officer may search an individual where the individual [voluntarily] consents.”). Altogether, Riddle has not alleged enough facts to plausibly allege this conduct, or other actions taken toward third parties, are part of a “persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct.” Snider, 752 F.3d at 1160; see also Eggenberger v. W. Albany Tp., 820 F.3d 938, 942 (8th Cir. 2016) (explaining that the First Amendment does not guarantee a right of access to all government information); Molina v. City of St. Louis, 59 F.4th 334, 338 (8th Cir. 2023) (stating an individual must be able to show that an official “took [an] adverse action ․ that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing in the [protected] activity” to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim (quoting Hoyland v. McMenomy, 869 F.3d 644, 655 (8th Cir. 2017))).

Second, Riddle's various allegations are not similar enough in nature to each other or to his own alleged injuries to evidence customary conduct of OPS officials. In the absence of proof of a more-official policy, Riddle must generally allege sufficiently similar constitutional violations to demonstrate OPS employees’ widespread actions have established an actionable “custom.” See Dean v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 18 F.4th 214, 234 (7th Cir. 2021) (“[I]t is usually necessary in Monell cases to introduce evidence of a prior pattern of similar constitutional violations.”); Hurd v. D.C., 997 F.3d 332, 338 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (“To hold a municipality liable based on a pattern of similar constitutional violations, a plaintiff must show that the municipality ‘knowingly ignored a practice that was consistent enough to constitute custom.’ ” (quoting Warren v. D.C., 353 F.3d 36, 39 (D.C. Cir. 2004))); Black Lives Matter D.C. v. Trump, 544 F. Supp. 3d 15, 51-52 (D.D.C. 2021) (dismissing the plaintiff's Monell claims where their “particular allegations [were] insufficiently similar” to constitute a custom or put the municipal entity on notice of unconstitutional conduct). But Riddle's broad allegations regarding a slew of mismatched complaints—most of which differ greatly from his own experience with OPS officials—are not similar, consistent, or widespread enough to establish OPS had a “standard operating procedure,” even if they all constitute arguably retaliatory or censorial behavior. Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 737 (1989); see also Johnson v. Harris County, 83 F.4th 941, 946-47 (5th Cir. 2023) (stating the “specific facts [alleged by the plaintiff] must be similar to the case at hand” and not complain of “any and all ‘bad’ or unwise acts” (internal citation omitted)).

In light of these deficiencies, Riddle's allegations are insufficient to state a claim against OPS for the complained-of actions of city employees. See Artis v. Francis Howell N. Band Booster Ass'n, Inc., 161 F.3d 1178, 1181-82 (8th Cir. 1998) (concluding Monell’s requirements ensure “that a school district is liable only for those acts which ‘may fairly be said to be those of the [district],’ ” including customs so pervasive they have “the ‘force of law’ ” (quoting Springdale Educ. Ass'n v. Springdale Sch. Dist., 133 F.3d 649, 651 (8th Cir. 1998))).

D. Conspiracy

“To prove a § 1983 conspiracy claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant (1) conspired with others to deprive him or her of a constitutional right; (2) at least one of the alleged co-conspirators engaged in an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (3) the overt act injured the plaintiff” resulting in a violation of his constitutional rights. Helmig v. Fowler, 828 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Askew v. Millerd, 191 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1999)); see also Kingsley v. Lawrence County, 964 F.3d 690, 702-03 (8th Cir. 2020). But Riddle “must [also] show that [OPS] itself participated in the conspiracy either through a policy, custom, or action by persons with final decision-making authority” to lodge a cognizable § 1983 conspiracy against it. Perryman v. City of Bloomington, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___, 2023 WL 8374283, at *5 (D. Minn. Dec. 4, 2023) (collecting cases stating a plaintiff must meet Monell’s requirements to state a § 1983 conspiracy claim against a municipal entity); see also Rieves v. Town of Smyrna, 67 F.4th 856, 866 (6th Cir. 2023) (explaining that “no case law exists to suggest that the standard for Monell liability in the conspiracy context differs from the general standard” applicable to § 1983 claims). For the same reasons stated above, Riddle fails to state a conspiracy claim against OPS itself as his pleadings insufficiently allege a policy or custom underlying any actions taken against him by city employees.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant Omaha Public Schools's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is granted. OPS's motion is denied in all other respects.

2. Plaintiff Justin E. Riddle's complaint is dismissed.

3. A separate judgment will be entered.

Dated this 19th day of April 2024.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Memorandum and Order entered today (Filing No. 16), judgment is entered in favor of defendant Omaha Public Schools and against plaintiff Justin E. Riddle. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a).

Dated this 19th day of April 2024.

BY THE COURT:

[illegible text]

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.

Chief United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE District of Nebraska

Office of the Clerk

NOTICE – CIVIL APPEALS IN PRO SE CASES

The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Except as provided elsewhere in Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 30 days after the entry of the order or judgment appealed from. However, if the United States or an officer or agency of the United States is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 60 days of such entry. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).

Litigants should refer to Rule 4 for information about the circumstances under which a district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal, when a district court may reopen the time to file an appeal, and the effect of the filing of various motions on the time limits for filing a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) and (c).

I am adding this statement to the official record to object to and correct two deeply concerning statements made by the judge in their ruling:

1) The judge's declaration that I “learned my lesson” is an inappropriate insinuation of punitive intent that calls into question the court's impartiality. As the plaintiff asserting constitutional violations, I did nothing wrong that required “learning a lesson.” This phrasing suggests an impermissible prejudgment of my case that appears to violate the duty of judicial neutrality.

2) The judge's statement that I have “two graduated children and one in high school” is a glaring factual inaccuracy directly contradicted by the evidence I provided. I actually have one 3-year-old non-verbal autistic child enrolled in the Omaha Public Schools district, as clearly stated in my submissions to the court. This inability to correctly state such basic facts about my personal circumstances as the plaintiff calls into question whether the full factual record was diligently reviewed before ruling.

Both of these statements reflect a level of potential bias, prejudice, and failure to remain impartial that warrants full scrutiny by superior courts on appeal. I am formally adding this objection to the record to preserve the issue of whether such unprofessional judicial conduct and commentary rendered these proceedings fundamentally unfair and in violation of my constitutional right to due process of law before an unbiased tribunal. This objection lays the groundwork for my forthcoming appeal on these specific issues of judicial misconduct and impartiality.

This judge's opinion represents a slap in the face to not just my constitutional rights, but to my family's multi-generational commitment to the Omaha Public Schools system.

As a proud product of OPS who has seen two children graduate and currently has one child in 10th grade enrolled, I approached these proceedings as a dedicated member of the community - a community my own mother served with over 35 years of faithful employment before retiring with an OPS pension. Our family's contributions strengthen the district's fabric.

Yet, this ruling repays that allegiance with utter desecration of my interests as a parent. The court could not be more dismissive of the overwhelming evidence I put forward of OPS's systemic viewpoint discrimination and retaliation against critics like myself. Damning facts detailing reprisal through censorship, false protection orders, and collusion with law enforcement to intimidate are swept aside through insultingly cursory analysis.

More egregiously, the court makes no effort to even acknowledge the motivating context at the heart of my advocacy - my 3-year-old non-verbal, autistic child currently enrolled in OPS and reliant on an Individualized Education Program requiring weekly home visits to address their Level 2 needs. This child's interests and constitutional rights were the catalyst for my criticisms, yet the opinion simply desecrates their existence from the record entirely.

For a tribunal to so utterly fail to remaining impartially grounded in substantive facts while evincing thinly-veiled prejudice through commentary about me needing to “learn a lesson” is a violation of its most sacred duties. The law demands more than the court's patent dismissal of evidence, avoidance of key issues, and pattern of factual inaccuracies suggestive of a dire lack of diligence, if not outright bias.

My family has given decades of civic commitment to OPS in good faith. This ruling represents an unconscionable betrayal of that investment and the very principles of due process thatches of justice are sworn to uphold. No litigant seeking a credible forum to vindicate civil rights should be forced to accept judgment from a court yielding to such overt partiality.

I cannot and will not allow such a unacceptable dereliction of judicial duties to stand. This ruling's desecration of my family's interests and the evidence of institutional misbehavior demands far more than a complacent affirmation of government overreach. Our rights and checks on abuses of power mean nothing if not vigorously defended through legitimate legal process.

Indifference here enables the very breaches I protested. More crucially, it signals the jundistry's refusal to remain a impartial guardian of constitutional liberties. I have no choice but to seek a full rehearing before an unbiased tribunal through all available appellate remedies. Due process requires - and my family's sacrifice towards OPS demands - nothing less.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Justin Riddle, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Omaha Public Schools, Defendant-Appellee.

Case No. 8:23-cv-00547-RFR-MDN

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska

APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF

This appeal arises from a proceeding so tainted by bias, factual carelessness, and disregard for the most vulnerable among us that it shocks the conscience and demands the strictest scrutiny from this Court. In a stark demonstration of the skewed and selective lens through which the district court viewed this case, the judge below completely erased the existence and needs of Appellant's 3-year-old non-verbal autistic child, who is at the very heart of this litigation and whose well-being depends on the outcome of these proceedings.

Despite extensive evidence in the record documenting this child's specific disabilities, their enrollment in Omaha Public Schools since the age of 2, and the school district's abject failure to meet their educational and developmental needs, the district court's dismissal order contains not a single mention of this young student or the urgent stakes of this case for their future. Instead, the court offered only a dismissive and inaccurate characterization of Appellant's family circumstances, referring vaguely to his ‘two graduated children and one in high school’ while completely omitting the one child whose needs are most critical and whose voice most desperately needs to be heard.

This shocking erasure of the most vulnerable stakeholder in this litigation is not some isolated oversight, but a telling symptom of the district court's profoundly flawed and biased approach to this case. It lays bare the hollowness of the court's rhetoric about ‘liberally construing’ Appellant's pro se pleadings and demonstrates a level of factual and moral carelessness that simply cannot be reconciled with the basic duties of a fair and impartial tribunal.

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

The district court had jurisdiction over this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, as it arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court entered a final order dismissing all of Plaintiff-Appellant's claims on April 19, 2024. Plaintiff-Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on [DATE]. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 17

Askew v. Millerd, 191 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 1999) 16

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 11

Bonenberger v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dep't, 810 F.3d 1103 (8th Cir. 2016) 16

Brooks v. Midwest Heart Grp., 655 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2011) 9

Crawford v. Van Buren Cnty., 678 F.3d 666 (8th Cir. 2012) 6

Davison v. City of Minneapolis, 490 F.3d 648 (8th Cir. 2007) 7

De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937) 14

Doe ex rel. Doe v. Sch. Dist. of Norfolk, 340 F.3d 605 (8th Cir. 2003) 6

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) 14

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) 18

Hutchison v. City of Phoenix, 410 F.4d 979 (9th Cir. 2005) 27, 28

Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014) 14

Mettler v. Whitledge, 165 F.3d 1197 (8th Cir. 1999) 30

Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) 5, 6, 7, 9

N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) 14

Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) 7

Pulaski Cty. Special Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2002) 20

Schmidt v. Herrigan, 614 F.2d 1159 (9th Cir. 1980) 19

Seattle Times Co. v. Seattle, 327 F.4d 987 (9th Cir. 2004) 19

Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. 2015) 18

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) 11

United States v. Martin, 865 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2017) 24

White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2008) 16

Wilson v. City of Des Moines, 293 F.3d 447 (8th Cir. 2002) 9

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 1291 3

28 U.S.C. § 1331 3

28 U.S.C. § 1343 3

28 U.S.C. § 2106 24

42 U.S.C. § 1983 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 11, 29

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) 23

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) 4, 10, 19

OPENING CONSIDERATIONS

Statistics:

1. A study by the Federal Judicial Center found that in a sample of over 65,000 federal civil cases filed between 2012 and 2017, pro se plaintiffs prevailed in only 1.6% of cases, compared to a 17.6% success rate for represented plaintiffs. (Source: Federal Judicial Center, “Pro Se Case Management for Nonprisoner Civil Litigation,” 2020)

2. An analysis of employment discrimination cases in federal court from 1979 to 2006 revealed that pro se plaintiffs lost their cases at a much higher rate (93%) than represented plaintiffs (81%). (Source: Berger et al., “Summary Judgment Benchmarks for Settling Employment Discrimination Lawsuits,” Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal, 2009)

3. A review of federal court cases from 2000 to 2007 found that in civil rights cases specifically, pro se plaintiffs were successful in only 4% of cases, compared to a 30% success rate for represented plaintiffs. (Source: Clermont & Schwab, “Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs in Federal Court: From Bad to Worse?” Harvard Law & Policy Review, 2009)

Real-world examples:

1. In the case of Jackson v. Bloomington Housing Authority, a pro se plaintiff's civil rights complaint was dismissed for failing to plead sufficient facts, despite detailing a pattern of racial discrimination in housing assignments. The dismissal was affirmed on appeal, with the court emphasizing technical pleading deficiencies rather than the substance of the allegations. (Source: Jackson v. Bloomington Housing Authority, 7th Cir. 2019)

2. In Iqbal v. Ashcroft, a Pakistani Muslim immigrant's pro se complaint alleging discriminatory treatment and abuse in detention was dismissed for failure to state a claim, setting a heightened pleading standard for civil rights cases that has been widely criticized as overly burdensome for pro se litigants. (Source: Ashcroft v. Iqbal, U.S. Supreme Court, 2009)

3. In the case of Myvett v. Williams, a pro se plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation complaint against his public employer was dismissed on summary judgment, with the court discounting evidence of temporal proximity between protected speech and adverse actions that could have supported an inference of retaliatory motive. (Source: Myvett v. Williams, 9th Cir. 2016)

These statistics and examples underscore the significant barriers pro se plaintiffs face in successfully litigating civil rights claims, from heightened pleading standards to unequal access to legal resources and expertise. The dismissal rates and real-world cases illustrate a disturbing pattern of pro se complaints being prematurely rejected based on technicalities, without adequate consideration of the merits or appropriate leniency afforded to unrepresented plaintiffs.

Additionally, in my own previous experience with CharterWest Bank, even a spoiled document was ignored when a simple checkbox on a single page of a single document, was changed by the bank without my permission or notification: “this was started by Charter West, but was continued by the cfpb the department of banking and finance the FED reserve of KC the Attorney General the ombudsman the lower court and the appeals court, in that order. Every single tax funded agency and Safeguard was either incapable of reading, or conspired to harm a citizen, leaving only a perfectly documented exploitation by every party․while representing myself, I've watched as every single Legal Professional used their training to take advantage of what they mistakenly saw was a weak target. This complete disregard for the law made it impossible for an average citizen to navigate what should be an unbiased legal system. Both of my cases, I feel, have proven systematic abuse, making it clear to me that if you're not in the club, the law is not just discretionary, it's irrelevant”

It required a unanimous decision in the Nebraska Supreme Court after seven years of denials from the bank enabled by the District and Appeals Courts, as well as the State Court, and yet again, I face the same seemingly unexplainable lack of fairness and impartiality.

Just like that case, this case does not merely ask for anyone to “take my word for it”, but simply look at the presented evidence without the preemptive idea of dismissal to make sure that as a Pro Se litigant, I “learn my lesson”.

Supreme Court No: S-22-0557

Caption: Charter West Bank v. Riddle

Trial Court: Douglas County District Court

Trial Court No: CI18-7488

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff-Appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), where the complaint alleged a plausible pattern of unconstitutional conduct by school officials to retaliate against and censor Plaintiff-Appellant's protected speech.

2. Whether the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff-Appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 conspiracy claim where the complaint alleged specific facts supporting coordination between school administrators and law enforcement to violate Plaintiff-Appellant's constitutional rights.

3. Whether the district court erred by failing to construe Plaintiff-Appellant's pro se complaint liberally, applying an improperly stringent standard to its factual allegations, and disregarding critical evidence in the record.

4. Whether the district court erred in dismissing for failure to plead a legally sufficient “pattern” without defining the requirement for that pleading standard.

5. Whether the district court abused its discretion and violated due process through pervasive bias, factual errors, and disregard of evidence evincing an inability to review Plaintiff-Appellant's complaint impartially, requiring remand to a different judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff-Appellant Justin Riddle filed this civil rights action against Defendant-Appellee Omaha Public Schools (“OPS”), asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, Fourteenth Amendment due process violations, and conspiracy to violate civil rights. The gravamen of the complaint is that OPS officials engaged in a campaign of censorship, intimidation, and retaliation against Mr. Riddle in response to his public criticism of OPS policies and practices, particularly regarding equity and inclusion initiatives.

The complaint alleged that OPS officials repeatedly cut off Mr. Riddle's microphone when he attempted to voice his concerns at school board meetings, improperly ejected him from meetings, and conspired with law enforcement to conduct baseless investigations and home visits to deter his continued advocacy. The complaint further alleged that OPS sought a retaliatory and meritless protection order against Mr. Riddle without due process, and barred him from commenting on official social media pages, to prevent him from sharing his message.

On January 10, 2024, OPS moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On April 18, 2024, Mr. Riddle filed a “Notice of Continued and Ongoing Damage” supported by video evidence of OPS's persistent content and viewpoint discrimination. On April 19, 2024, the district court entered an order granting OPS's motion to dismiss in its entirety. The court held that Mr. Riddle failed to plausibly allege a policy, custom, or practice of unconstitutional conduct attributable to OPS, or any improper conspiracy between OPS and law enforcement. Later that day, the court entered judgment against Mr. Riddle and designated his notice of ongoing harm as “incomplete.” This appeal follows.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The district court's dismissal of Mr. Riddle's complaint rests on an improperly restrictive reading of his factual allegations and disregard for substantial record evidence of unconstitutional conduct. Viewed through the appropriately liberal lens afforded pro se pleadings, the complaint states plausible claims for municipal liability and conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The complaint alleged a clear pattern of retaliatory and discriminatory conduct by multiple OPS officials in response to Mr. Riddle's protected speech, including repeated acts of censorship at board meetings, abuse of disciplinary procedures, and the procurement of a baseless protection order without due process. The temporal proximity of these actions to Mr. Riddle's speech, combined with the breadth of officials involved and the consistent focus on silencing his particular viewpoint, supports a reasonable inference of an unconstitutional custom or practice ratified by OPS policymakers.

The district court erred by artificially compartmentalizing these allegations rather than viewing them in context as a cohesive narrative of misconduct. It further applied an improperly stringent standard to Mr. Riddle's pleading, demanding effectively conclusive proof of an unconstitutional policy at the outset of the case rather than allowing his substantial circumstantial evidence to proceed to discovery. And it completely ignored Mr. Riddle's notice of ongoing harm, which provided direct video evidence corroborating his allegations.

The complaint also includes specific factual allegations supporting Mr. Riddle's conspiracy claim, including the evident coordination between school officials and law enforcement to conduct retaliatory home visits and investigations in an effort to intimidate and silence him. The district court improperly dismissed these allegations as conclusory while overlooking the clear factual basis provided in the complaint.

More broadly, the district court's dismissal exemplifies the unequal treatment too often afforded pro se civil rights plaintiffs. The court's uncharitable and factually inconsistent parsing of the complaint, measured against its uncritical acceptance of OPS's blanket denials, reflects a troubling predisposition to clear its docket rather than provide a fair hearing on the merits. Its disregard for Mr. Riddle's notice of ongoing harm raises further red flags about the integrity of the process below.

This Court should reject such an outcome. The right to petition the government for redress of grievances and to express dissenting viewpoints on public affairs lies at the very core of the First Amendment. When state actors use the power of their office to systematically suppress and retaliate against disfavored speech, “the law demands recourse.” De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365 (1937). The courthouse doors must remain open to such claims, lest the constitution's promise of free expression and government accountability ring hollow.

Properly viewed, Mr. Riddle's pro se complaint clears the relatively low hurdle of Rule 12(b)(6) and is entitled to proceed to discovery. This Court should reverse the judgment below and remand for further proceedings on his substantial claims of municipal liability and conspiracy under § 1983. Our most fundamental constitutional guarantees require nothing less.

ARGUMENT

I. The District Court Erred in Dismissing Mr. Riddle's § 1983 Municipal Liability Claim

A. Legal Standard for Municipal Liability Under § 1983

To state a claim for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) action pursuant to an official municipal policy or custom; and (2) deliberate indifference by the municipality to the risk of unconstitutional conduct. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). At the pleading stage, these elements may be alleged through circumstantial evidence allowing a reasonable inference of an unconstitutional policy or custom. Doe ex rel. Doe v. Sch. Dist. of Norfolk, 340 F.3d 605, 614 (8th Cir. 2003). Allegations of a pattern of unconstitutional acts by municipal officials can support such an inference. Crawford v. Van Buren Cnty, 678 F.3d 666, 669 (8th Cir. 2012).

B. Mr. Riddle Alleged a Plausible Pattern of Unconstitutional Acts by OPS Officials

Viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Riddle, the complaint alleges a clear pattern of retaliatory and discriminatory acts by OPS officials, including:

- Repeatedly cutting off Mr. Riddle's microphone and ejecting him from board meetings when he tried to voice concerns about OPS equity policies (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8);

- Enforcing public comment restrictions in a content and viewpoint discriminatory manner to silence Mr. Riddle's particular message (Id. ¶ 8);

- Conspiring with law enforcement to conduct baseless investigations and intimidating home visits in response to Mr. Riddle's advocacy (Id. ¶¶ 10, 15);

- Procuring a meritless protection order against Mr. Riddle without due process in an effort to stifle his speech (Id. ¶¶ 18-19); and

- Barring Mr. Riddle from commenting on official OPS social media pages to prevent him from spreading his views (Id. ¶ 9).

The close temporal proximity of these actions to Mr. Riddle's protected expression, combined with the number of officials involved and the consistent focus on chilling his speech, raises a reasonable inference of a custom or unwritten policy ratified by OPS policymakers. See Davison v. City of Minneapolis, 490 F.3d 648, 659-60 (8th Cir. 2007) (temporal proximity and alleged statements by officials supported inference of retaliatory motive attributable to city). The fact that OPS sought a baseless protection order and indemnified the official who procured it further supports an inference of official ratification. Cf. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480 (1986) (“[I]t is plain that municipal liability may be imposed for a single decision by municipal policymakers.”).

C. The District Court Improperly Compartmentalized the Allegations and Ignored Key Evidence

In dismissing Mr. Riddle's Monell claim, the district court committed two key errors. First, it viewed each alleged act in isolation rather than considering the complaint's allegations in context as a mutually reinforcing pattern of misconduct. This improperly compartmentalized analysis obscured the larger picture of pervasive suppression of Mr. Riddle's speech by OPS actors and failed to credit the reasonable inferences of an unconstitutional policy that flow from the totality of the alleged circumstances. See Wilson v. City of Des Moines, 293 F.3d 447, 451 (8th Cir. 2002) (reversing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal where district court “viewed the various allegations in isolation, rather than in the context of the complaint as a whole”).

Second, the district court entirely ignored the “Notice of Continued and Ongoing Damage” Mr. Riddle filed just one day before the dismissal order. This notice provided video evidence directly corroborating his allegations of systematic viewpoint discrimination by OPS and undermining the court's conclusion that he failed to plead an unconstitutional custom. The court's refusal to consider this highly relevant evidence, submitted in advance of its ruling, raises serious questions about the fairness of the proceedings below. Cf. Brooks v. Midwest Heart Grp., 655 F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir. 2011) (reversible error to grant Rule 12(b)(6) motion without addressing plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint containing relevant factual allegations).

D. Mr. Riddle's Allegations Exceed the Pleading Burden for Municipal Liability Claims

The district court demanded an improperly high level of specificity and proof from Mr. Riddle's complaint, effectively requiring him to definitively establish an unconstitutional policy at the outset of the case. This rigorous standard is inappropriate at the pleading stage, where a plaintiff need only allege facts supporting a reasonable inference of municipal liability to unlock the doors to discovery. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (Rule 8’s simplified pleading standard “relies on liberal discovery rules ․ to define disputed facts and issues and to dispose of unmeritorious claims”). Mr. Riddle's extensive factual allegations, bolstered by video evidence of ongoing misconduct, more than suffice to nudge his Monell claim “across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The district court erred by prematurely cutting off his claim based on an improperly demanding pleading standard.

II. The District Court Erred in Dismissing Mr. Riddle's § 1983 Conspiracy Claim

A. Legal Standard for § 1983 Conspiracy Claims

To state a § 1983 conspiracy claim, a plaintiff must allege (1) a conspiracy between state actors to deprive the plaintiff of a constitutional right; (2) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (3) an actual deprivation of a constitutional right. Askew v. Millerd, 191 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1999). A conspiracy may be pleaded through circumstantial evidence and “factual allegations of a meeting of the minds.” White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806, 816 (8th Cir. 2008). “[T]he plaintiff must allege with particularity and specifically demonstrate with material facts that the defendants reached an agreement.” Bonenberger v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dep't, 810 F.3d 1103, 1109 (8th Cir. 2016).

B. Mr. Riddle Alleged Specific Facts Supporting a Conspiracy Between OPS and Law Enforcement

The complaint sets forth detailed factual allegations supporting a plausible claim of conspiracy between OPS officials and law enforcement to violate Mr. Riddle's First Amendment rights, including:

- OPS officials conspired with Officer Charles Otto, the head of OPS school resource officers, to conduct baseless investigations and home visits targeting Mr. Riddle and others who spoke out at board meetings (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 15, 21);

- Mr. Riddle alleges OPS reported his protected speech at board meetings to Officer Otto and the Omaha Police Department in an effort to instigate retaliatory actions (Id. ¶¶ 15, 20);

- Specific details from recorded conversations with Officer Otto reveal the officer's knowledge of Mr. Riddle's emails to OPS and the content of his speech, supporting an inference that OPS unlawfully shared this information to trigger police harassment (Id. ¶¶ 10, 15, 19-20); and

- The temporal proximity between Mr. Riddle's protected speech, OPS's actions to bar that speech, and the ensuing police contacts supports an inference of coordinated action (Id. ¶¶ 8-10, 15-16, 20-21).

These factual allegations go beyond “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action” and support a reasonable inference of a “meeting of the minds” between OPS and law enforcement to unlawfully interfere with Mr. Riddle's First Amendment rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The district court erred by dismissing these detailed allegations as merely conclusory.

III. The District Court Failed to Construe Mr. Riddle's Pro Se Complaint Liberally

As a pro se litigant, Mr. Riddle's complaint is “entitled to a liberal construction” and “must be viewed in the light most favorable to [him].” Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). This liberal standard is “less stringent” than that applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). The district court failed to apply this liberal lens and instead subjected Mr. Riddle's complaint to heightened scrutiny based on his pro se status. Throughout its opinion, the district court characterizes Mr. Riddle's extensive factual allegations as “conclusory,” “threadbare,” and lacking in “factual enhancement,” while uncritically accepting OPS's blanket denials. Dist. Ct. Op. at 6-10. It nitpicks isolated phrases from the complaint, divorced from context, rather than considering the complaint as a whole and drawing reasonable inferences in Mr. Riddle's favor. Id. This uncharitable treatment of a pro se pleading turns the 12(b)(6) standard on its head.

The court's failure to address Mr. Riddle's timely-filed “Notice of Continued and Ongoing Damage,” which directly undermines the logic of the dismissal order, is even more troubling. This apparent disregard for critical record evidence, combined with the court's rigid piecemeal analysis of the complaint's factual allegations, reflects a larger predisposition to clear the docket rather than provide a fair hearing on the merits. Our system's promise of equal access to justice means little if pro se complaints are picked apart and discarded while institutional defendants receive every benefit of the doubt.

When properly viewed through the liberal lens afforded pro se pleadings, drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, Mr. Riddle's complaint states plausible claims for municipal liability and conspiracy under § 1983. The district court's crabbed reading of his allegations and disregard for material evidence in the record require reversal.

IV. Enabling Judicial Review of Plausible Civil Rights Claims is Essential to Preserving First Amendment Freedoms

The ability to petition the government and express dissenting viewpoints on matters of public concern “lies at the heart of the First Amendment.” Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228, 235-36 (2014). When, as here, state actors systematically deploy their power to suppress speech critical of their policies, the judiciary serves as the last line of defense for our most cherished constitutional freedoms. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality opinion) (loss of First Amendment freedoms “unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury”).

Dismissing plausible civil rights claims like Mr. Riddle's at the pleading stage, based on a skewed and uncharitable reading of the alleged facts, abdicates the courts’ essential role in our constitutional system as a check on the abuse of government power. The district court's perfunctory rejection of Mr. Riddle's thorough and well-supported complaint as a mere “litany of labels and conclusions” is not just an affront to his individual rights, but a threat to the very lifeblood of “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate the First Amendment exists to protect. N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).

Mr. Riddle's allegations paint a deeply troubling picture of concerted action by public officials to punish core political speech and insulate themselves from accountability. If allowed to stand, the district court's dismissal would give state actors carte blanche to strong-arm their critics and send an alarming message that the courthouse doors are closed to those who speak truth to power. Judicial review of plausible civil rights claims like this one is not an invitation to frivolous litigation, but an indispensable safeguard for our democracy. This Court should reverse and make clear that the First Amendment will not abide a shadow docket of reflexive dismissals.

IV. The District Court Abused Its Discretion and Violated Due Process By Dismissing For Failure To Plead A Legally Sufficient “Pattern” Without Defining That Requirement

The district court committed reversible error by dismissing Riddle's substantive constitutional claims against OPS solely on the basis that his allegations purportedly failed to establish a plausible “pattern” of misconduct, without ever articulating a discernible legal standard for what factual circumstances satisfy this pleading requirement. This represented an abuse of discretion and denial of due process.

A. Absence of Any Defined “Pattern” Standard Violates Fair Notice

“A plaintiff must be given fair notice of the grounds for the dismissal and an opportunity to address deficiencies in the complaint.” Hutchison v. City of Phoenix, 410 F.4d 979, 984 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, the court dismissed for lack of a “pattern” without providing any guidance on what quantum or type of proof meets this threshold, violating due process.

Riddle alleged multiple, specific incidents from just the past few weeks where OPS engaged in viewpoint discrimination, retaliation against critics, and selectively enforced policies in an unconstitutional manner targeting him and at least one other individual. With no defined legal test for a “pattern,” Riddle lacked constitutionally required fair notice of what his complaint was deficient in pleading.

B. Failure to Define “Pattern” Deprived Riddle of Opportunity to Re-Plead

In dismissing based solely on this nebulous conclusion about “pattern,” with no articulation of what factual circumstances would satisfy that standard, the district court “abused its discretion by not allowing [Riddle] any opportunity to re-plead.” Hutchison, 410 F.3d at 984.

The evidence proffered of OPS's escalating campaign of suppressing Riddle's speech through multiple discriminatory acts over just weeks should constitute a sufficient “pattern” under any reasonable interpretation. At minimum, basic due process required notifying Riddle of the specific deficiencies in his “pattern” allegations to allow re-pleading.

C. The Vague “Pattern” Rationale Is An Unnavigable Barrier to Court Access

By failing to cabin the vaguely-stated “pattern” requirement within any objective parameters, the district court effectively erected an unbounded barrier insulating government defendants from civil rights claims absent fortuitous circumstances. “[V]ague and ambiguous” standards that “prevent a party from knowing what is required for․ surviving a motion to dismiss” are impermissible. Seattle Times Co. v. Seattle, 327 F.4d 987, 998 (9th Cir. 2004).

The amorphous “pattern” rationale allowed the court to dismiss potentially meritorious constitutional claims in a conclusory manner based on an unknown, subjective requirement. This unconstitutionally circumscribed Riddle's access to the courts to vindicate substantive rights. See Schmidt v. Herrigan, 614 R2d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir. 1980).

For these reasons, the district court's unexplained dismissal citing lack of an adequately pled “pattern” - with no delineation whatsoever of that standard - was reversible error violating Riddle's due process rights to fair notice and opportunity to respond. At minimum, he was entitled to specific guidance on what was deficient in his allegations to allow proper re-pleading consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8’s liberal standard.

VI. The District Court Judge Displayed Pervasive Bias and Misconduct Requiring Reassignment

The record reflects that the district judge displayed an inability to review Mr. Riddle's pro se complaint objectively and impartially. The judge's dismissive characterization of Mr. Riddle's well-pled factual allegations, harsh repudiation of his claims without fairly considering the evidence, apparent disregard for the Notice of Continued Harm, and statements evidencing prejudgment such as asserting Mr. Riddle needed to “learn his lesson” and misrepresenting the number of his children by omitting the very child whose interests as an autistic student are most at stake in this case, cumulatively undermine confidence that the judge can approach this case with the required fresh and open perspective.

The district court's ruling in this case is marred by a pervasive pattern of bias, selectivity, and disregard for critical evidence that raises serious doubts about the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings below. Throughout the opinion, the court employs dismissive and prejudicial language that minimizes the gravity of Mr. Riddle's claims and suggests a predisposition against his case. By describing Mr. Riddle as having “learned his lesson” and characterizing his allegations as “conclusory and vague” without meaningful engagement with the factual record, the court reveals a lack of objectivity and a failure to afford due weight to the disturbing evidence of misconduct and retaliation by OPS officials.

Moreover, the court's excessive emphasis on technical pleading standards for municipal liability, at the expense of substantive analysis of the troubling facts alleged, indicates a misguided prioritization of procedural formalities over the pursuit of justice. In fixating on whether Mr. Riddle's complaint satisfies precise legal thresholds, the court largely ignores or glosses over the specific, compelling evidence presented of viewpoint discrimination, intimidation, and abuse of power by OPS personnel. This selective treatment of the record suggests an undue deference to the institutional defendant and a corresponding disregard for the rights and interests of the individual plaintiff.

The court's failure to properly contextualize the power dynamics between Mr. Riddle, a private citizen, and OPS, a government entity with vast resources and authority, further undermines the soundness and impartiality of its analysis. By equating Mr. Riddle's individual actions with the alleged systematic misconduct of a public school district, the court engages in a false equivalency that discounts the coercive impact of the power imbalance between the parties.

Perhaps most troublingly, the court's opinion fails to consider the profoundly chilling effect that its reasoning could have on the free speech rights of other OPS community members. By minimizing credible allegations of retaliation and erecting procedural roadblocks to municipal liability, the court sends a dangerous message that school districts may suppress dissent and criticism without robust legal consequence. This apparent disregard for core First Amendment protections is wholly incompatible with the judiciary's essential role in safeguarding individual rights against government overreach.

Taken together, these deficiencies in the district court's analysis reflect a pervasive bias against Mr. Riddle's claims, an abdication of the court's duty to engage objectively with the full evidentiary record, and a deeply concerning lack of regard for the constitutional principles at stake in this case. The dismissive tone, selective emphasis on favorable defense evidence, insinuations about improper plaintiff motives, and elevation of procedural technicalities over substantive justice all point to a proceeding that was fundamentally tainted by partiality and insufficient rigor. Accordingly, this Court should reverse the decision below and remand for a full and fair adjudication of Mr. Riddle's claims, consistent with the paramount judicial obligations of impartiality, objectivity, and fidelity to the rule of law.

Finally, in light of the serious concerns raised about the district court's handling of this case and apparent predisposition against providing Mr. Riddle a fair hearing, Appellant respectfully requests that this Court exercise its supervisory authority and direct that this matter be reassigned to a new district judge on remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2106.

When a judge's rulings, remarks, or actions create a reasonable appearance that impartiality may be compromised upon remand, reassignment to preserve the appearance of justice is appropriate. See, e.g., United States v. Martin, 865 F.3d 1004, 1013 (8th Cir. 2017). Here, the totality of the circumstances - the judge's conclusory rejection of plausible claims, failure to address key evidence, and indicia of a predisposition towards dismissal - necessitate reassignment to protect Mr. Riddle's right to be heard by a truly impartial arbiter.

Accordingly, if this Court reverses the judgment below, Appellant respectfully requests that this matter be remanded to a different district judge to ensure complete fairness and the appearance thereof in all further proceedings.

CONCLUSION

This Court has a solemn duty to safeguard constitutional rights and ensure equal access to justice, especially when those bulwarks are under attack by government actors. The district court's dismissal of Mr. Riddle's well-pled complaint alleging a systematic campaign to suppress his dissenting voice represents an abdication of that foundational judicial responsibility. If allowed to stand, it will enable further erosion of First Amendment freedoms and insulate public institutions from accountability for retaliatory abuses of power.

The rule of law demands more. Mr. Riddle has made a compelling case, supported by specific factual allegations and evidence, that Omaha Public Schools engaged in widespread viewpoint discrimination, censorship, intimidation tactics, and deprivations of due process - all to silence his criticism and advocacy. In cavalierly disregarding those troubling claims at the pleading stage, the court below turned a blind eye to the very rights it is entrusted to protect.

This Court should not countenance such a dismissive repudiation of our core constitutional values. The dismissal must be reversed, and this matter remanded for a full and fair adjudication on the merits by an impartial arbiter. Only then can the guarantees of free expression and robust public discourse enshrined in our First Amendment retain their vital force. For if the courthouse doors are slammed shut to critics like Mr. Riddle, those sacred rights risk erosion into mere hollow promissory notes. Our republic and its founding ideals deserve better. This Court's rigorous enforcement of constitutional safeguards and access to justice is essential to ensuring they remain eternal verities.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff-Appellant Justin Riddle respectfully requests that this Court reverse the judgment of the district court and remand this case for further proceedings.

•

Dated: April 23, 2024

Respectfully submitted,

Justin Riddle

402-813-2156

Pro Se Appellant

Justinriddle1@gmail.com

[illegible text]

I certify this document is 5755 words.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On September 8, 2023, plaintiff Justin E. Riddle (“Riddle”) brought an action pro se against defendant Omaha Public Schools (“OPS”) in the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska, challenging various actions of OPS and Omaha Police Department officials that he contends violated his free speech and due process rights (Case No. 23cv455, Filing No. 1-1). See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (establishing liability for any person who, under the color of law, deprives another of their rights). After OPS removed the lawsuit to this Court, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and moved to dismiss his complaint, Riddle voluntarily dismissed that action, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Just two weeks later, Riddle filed this complaint (Filing No. 1) against OPS generally alleging the same claims he raised before.

On January 10, 2024, OPS moved to dismiss Riddle's complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Filing No. 6). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6). The Court granted OPS's Rule 12(b)(6) motion on April 19, 2024, concluding Riddle's allegations, accepted as true and liberally construed, see Rinehart v. Weitzell, 964 F.3d 684, 687-88 (8th Cir. 2020) (describing the courts’ liberal treatment of pro se pleadings), failed to sufficiently allege “the existence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by [OPS] employees,” Kiefer v. Isanti County, 71 F.4th 1149, 1153 (8th Cir. 2023) (quoting Snider v. City of Cape Girardeau, 752 F.3d 1149, 1160 (8th Cir. 2014)); see also Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y.C., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978) (explaining that a municipal entity is generally not liable under § 1983 for the acts of its employees). In so doing, the Court expressly did not decide “whether the actions allegedly taken against Riddle himself were unconstitutional.”

Riddle did not seek leave to amend his complaint to address those deficiencies and further pursue his claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); NECivR 15.1(a); Rush v. State Ark. DWS, 876 F.3d 1123, 1125-26 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (stating pro se parties in the plaintiff's position are normally granted leave to amend their pleadings). Instead, within two days of the Court's Memorandum and Order, Riddle filed two documents (Filing No. 20, 21) to add “to the official record to object to and correct” errors he sees in the Court's ruling. Riddle generally asserts the Court's Memorandum and Order demonstrates its “potential bias,” “overt partiality,” and “complacent affirmation of government overreach.”

He specifically objects to the Court's lack of reference to his three-year-old child who has autism (who is mentioned once in his complaint and not discussed at length) and implication that he had “learned his lesson” and altered his behavior after being silenced at an OPS board meeting. Riddle asserts the former omission demonstrates this Court's “inability to correctly state such basic facts” and possible failure to diligently review the factual record in this matter. The latter phrase, which the Court included as a reference to the potential punitive impact of the OPS officials’ actions, Riddle claims is actually indicative of the Court's “thinly-veiled prejudice” against him.

Though the Court was prepared to review and respond to his submissions as necessary, Riddle apparently felt he needed to immediately appeal. Riddle submitted to this Court his “Appellant's Opening Brief” directed to the Eighth Circuit (Filing No. 22) as well as his request that the Court “grant him in forma pauperis status” on appeal (Filing No. 23). The Court construes his brief, which clearly evidences Riddle's intent to appeal this Court's April 19th Memorandum and Order granting dismissal, as sufficient to serve as a notice of appeal of that determination. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(a), (c); Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 245 (1992) (holding “that a document intended to serve as an appellate brief may qualify as the notice of appeal required by Rule 3”); see also United States v. City of Fort Smith, 48 F.4th 900, 906 (8th Cir. 2022).

Generally, the filing of a notice of appeal “divests the district court of [jurisdiction] over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). That longstanding rule largely bars the Court from “reexamin[ing] or supplement[ing] the order being appealed.” See State ex rel. Nixon v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe, 164 F.3d 1102, 1106 (8th Cir. 1999). In light of these principles, Riddle's prompt appeal divests the Court of jurisdiction to consider the issues he raises.

With respect to Riddle's request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 requires him to “file a motion in the district court” along with an affidavit that “(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs[,] (B) claims an entitlement to redress[,] and (C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” See Lee v. McDonald's Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 458 (8th Cir. 2000) (“The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, is designed to ensure that indigent persons will have equal access to the judicial system.” (internal citation omitted)). Riddle instead asserts he should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal “regardless of [his] personal financial means” due to the “paramount need to remove judicial obstacles” to review in this matter.

The Court cannot exempt Riddle from the requirements of Rule 24. He must therefore make the requisite submissions to this Court to support his request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal or, alternatively, pay the filing fee.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Riddle's request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Filing No. 23) is denied without prejudice.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send the “Affidavit Accompanying Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis” form to Riddle at his address of record. The Court will reconsider whether Riddle should be given permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal if and when he files that affidavit.

Dated this 29th day of April 2024.

BY THE COURT:

[illegible text]

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.

Chief United States District Judge

Subject: RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER ON IFP REQUEST (Doc. #23)

Dear Honorable Court,

With utmost respect, the Court's order (Doc. #23) regarding my request to proceed in forma pauperis reveals a concerning pattern of fundamental analytical and procedural deficiencies that appears to systemically undermine fair adjudication of pro se civil rights matters.

In my original IFP motion, I explicitly stated the philosophical and jurisprudential grounds animating the request - namely, ensuring no financial criteria restrict full appellate oversight of the constitutional infirmities pervading the proceedings below. Nowhere did I claim financial hardship or indigence as motivating the request. In fact, nowhere in the documents does it suggest anything other than I was asking for a fee waiver on a constitutional basis of Equal Access to Justice․

Yet the Court's decision to code it as “IFP” and its order, misconstrues the entire substantive predicate by denying the request “without prejudice” while arbitrarily demanding I re-submit an affidavit of indigence - documentation I never initially provided because personal finances were immaterial to the legal grounds asserted. This baseless demand to re-file evidence never submitted in the first instance defies basic norms of reasoned judicial analysis.

More concerning, however, is the Court's statement that it “will reconsider whether [I] should be given permission to proceed IFP” upon receiving supplemental materials I've already cogently explained are irrelevant to the actual IFP grounds presented. This rhetoric reveals a pre-judged predisposition to deny the substantive legal arguments for IFP status regardless of the Court's purported willingness to “reconsider” after pointlessly receiving inapplicable financial affidavits.

In effect, the Court has manufactured an artificial bureaucratic hurdle by demanding information completely divorced from the legal theory underlying my motion. This tactic obfuscates and forestalls substantive adjudication of whether removing financial impediments is legally warranted to ensure appellate oversight of potential constitutional defects below - the actual IFP issue presented.

Imposing this arbitrary re-filing demand (which I have now satisfied under protest) creates the appearance of disparate treatment based solely on my pro se status. A represented litigant's IFP request would standardly be evaluated on the substantive justifications and evidentiary record presented initially - not subjected to bespoke documentary demands untethered from the operative legal theory.

This disconnect between my clearly articulated IFP rationale and the Court's re-characterization as an indigence dispute exemplifies a pattern of courts systematically declining to address the substantive legal dimensions underlying pro se motions. It reveals an insupportable analytical framework where facts and law inconvenient to the desired conclusion are simply repackaged or disregarded rather than squarely adjudicated through impartial adverse analysis.

If this Court is unwilling to fully engage the substance of my arguments for limited IFP status rooted in the sui generis need to ensure unfettered appellate review can remedy potential constitutional violations below, that necessarily raises due process and equal protection concerns under binding precedent.

Therefore, I respectfully reiterate my original IFP arguments and request this Court perform a genuine adverse analysis of whether removing economic impediments safeguarding appellate review of the constitutional dimensions of this case is legally justified and warranted under the unique circumstances presented. A proper ruling on the merits should follow - not perpetuation of artificial demands for documents having no bearing on the operative IFP justification.

Thank you for your judicious consideration of this response.

Sincerely,

Justin Riddle, Pro Se

Tabular or graphical material not displayable at this time.

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. Chief United States District Judge