kevin house lawsuit against west clermont schools

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

and

Tom Robinson, in his individual capacity,

and

Robert Hatfield, in his individual capacity,

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Constitutional principles, anti-discrimination and disability education statutes,

State of Ohio policies and regulations, and common law all bar unreasonable and otherwise

unlawful seizure and restraint of, and excessive force against, a student with autism and

cognitive and other multiple disabilities in a special school program. Law enforcement officers

and school officials cannot lawfully handcuff a student with multiple disabilities in that school

program designed to address the students behavioral challenges and then leave him prone for an

Kevin House,by and through his guardian, mother,and next friend Debbie Lynn House,

Plaintiff,

7.

Union Township, Ohio,

and

West Clermont Local School DistrictBoard of Education,

and

Steven Siekbert, in his individual capacity,

Case No. 1:15-CV-00585

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FORDECLARATORY RELIEF,PERMANENTINJUNCTIVE RELIEF, ANDCOMPENSATORY MONETARYDAMAGES

(JURY DEMAND)

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Case: 1:15-cv-00585-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/10/15 Page: 1 of 20 PAGEID #: 1

extended period. The totality of circumstances in this matter and the foreseeable significant

emotional injury to the disabled student bar the seizure, restraint, and excessive force.

2. Mechanical restraint of students and prone restraint of students are each unlawful

in Ohio yet the Defendants simultaneously applied both to Plaintiff Kevin House. a student with

disabilities attending an educational program for students with disabilities. The Defendants

acted recklessly. purposefully, and with deliberate indifference. In fact, they would do it all

again. The Plaintiffs address the Defendants systemic conduct and training deficiencies and seek

to prevent a recurrence of the Defendants unlawful seizure, restraint, and use of excessive force

against Kevin and against all other similarly situated children.

3. Kevin is a young man with multiple disabilities including autism, moderate

intellectual disability, epilepsy, and behavioral challenges. In September 2014. for reasons

directly related to his behavioral challenges. Kevin attended the Aspire Academy II program on

the Glen Este campus of the West Clermont Local School District. Kevin had an Individualized

Educational Program (1EV) and a professionally prepared Behavior Plan. Kevins Behavior

Plan identified that lie sometimes engaged in behaviors including aggression toward staff

including throwing items, hitting, kicking, and biting and that one of the purposes of the

Behavior Plan was to redirect Kevin from this aggressive behavior. On September 11, 2014, the

Defendants knowingly and recklessly ignored Kevins Behavior Plan and instead significantly

injured Kevin by unreasonably seizing him, using excessive force, and othenvise depriving the

student of rights protected under law. The Defendants systemically ignored essential law and

policy at the time and they systemically ignore that law and policy now.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1334.

23 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202. and 2$ U.S.C. 1361.

7


5. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because the

Plaintiff resides in Clermont county, Ohio, the Defendants provide services in Clermont County,

Ohio, and the events giving rise to this action occurred in Clermont County, Ohio.

III. PARTIES

6. Kevin is now 20-years old and resides in Clermont County, Ohio. with his

parents. Kevin has multiple disabilities including, but not limited to, autism, moderate

intellectual disability with an IQ level of 46, epilepsy, and behavioral challenges. Kevin is

entitled to the full protection of the United States Constitution, federal and state anti-

discrimination states, common law, and State of Ohio restraint policies. Kevin brings this action

through his mother and next friend Debbie Lynn I-louse.

7. Debbie Lynn House is Kevins mother and resides in Clermont County, Ohio.

8. Steven Siekbert (Siekbert) is a police officer employed by the Union Township.

Ohio, Police Department. Siekbert served as the School Resource Officer for Aspire Academy II

and other West Clermont programs on its Glen Este campus.

9. Tom Robinson (Robinson) was Kevins classroom teacher and is employed by

the West Clermont Local School District.

10. Robert Hatfield (Hatfield) was the assistant principal at Glen Este High School.

II. Union Township. Ohio. is a statutory local government entity under Ohio law and

is capable of suing and being sued. Union Township operates a police department (Police

Department or Union Township) that is a law enforcement agency in Clermont County, Ohio.

12. West Clermont Local School District Board of Education (West Clermont or

school district) is an entity organized and existing under Ohio law and is capable of suing and

being sued. West Clermont created Kevins IEP and Behavior Plan.

3


IV. FACTS

13. Kevin had just turned 19-years old on September 11, 2014, when Police Officer

Siekbert teacher Robinson, and assistant principal Hatfield handcuffed Kevin in school, during

school hours, and placed him prone on the ground for approximately 30 minutes.

14. Kevin has been a student enrolled in the West Clermont Local School District for

16 years. In September 2014, Kevin attended Aspire Academy, a West Clermont transition

program intended to teach Kevin daily living, functional, and work skills, to remediate his

challenging behaviors, and to prepare him to live and work as independently as possible.

15. Aspire Academy II is designed for students who have an IEP. otherwise have met

graduation requirements consistent with their IEP. but defer their diploma in order to attend the

Aspire Academy transition program.

16. West Clermont and Union Township have an agreement for Union Township to

provide a School Resource Officer for the West Clermont Glen Este campus including Aspire

Academy.

17. Defendant Siekbert is a law enforcement officer employed by Union Township

who was based in the West Clermont Glen Este campus as a School Resource Officer on

September 11. 2014. Several weeks earlier, Kevins mother Debbie House had shown a

photograph of Kevin to Siekbert and informed him that Kevin attended a special program at the

school and that he had autism and behavioral challenges.

18. In 2009, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a

nationwide stiLdy documenting hundreds of incidents of restraint and seclusion in schools from

1990-2009 including 20 incidents causing death. Almost all the identified incidents involved

students with disabilities. The GAO presented its study before the United States House of

4


Representatives Education and Labor Committee. The GAO explained that even without

physical injury a student could be severely traumatized by a restraint.

19. Following the GAO report and testimony, United States Secretary of EdiLcation

Arne Duncan requested that each state review and revise its restraint and seclusion policies.

20. On January 15. 2013, the Ohio State Board of Education approved the policy on

Positive Behavior Interventions and Support and Restraint and Seclusion. The Ohio policy

mandates that each school district must have a policy that specifically indicates that the use of

prone restraint ... is prohibited. The policy further mandates that each school district is

required to have a plan regarding the training of its staff in accordance with this policy On

April 9. 2013. the State Board of Education approved Ohio Administrative Code Section 330 1-

35-15 prohibiting prone restraint and mechanical restraint.

21. West Clermonts Bylaws and Policies Section 5630.01Positive Behavior

Intervention and Supports and Limited Use of Restraint and Seclusion provides: The Board is

committed to the District-wide use of Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) with

students . . . . Professional staff members and support staff determined appropriate by the

Superintendent are permitted to physically restrain . . . a student . . . but only when . . . there is no

other safe and effective intervention possible, and the physical restraint ... is used in a manner

that is age and developmentally appropriate.

22. West Clermont Bylaws and Policies Section 5630.01 reqiLires: All restraint

shall only be done in accordance with this Policy, which is based on the standards adopted by the

State Board of Education regarding the use of student restraint Training in methods of PBIS

and the use of restraint ill be provided to all professional staff and support staff determined

appropriate by the Superintendent. Training will be in accordance with the States Standards.

5


Only school staff who are trained in permissible . . . physical restraint measures shall use such

techniques.

23. Section 5630.01 prohibits mechanical restraints such as handcifffi and prohibits

prone restraints. The Bylaws and Policies plainly provides that physical restraint, mechanical

restraint, prone restraint, and chemical restraint are all different and leaves no doubt: The use of

restraint other than physical restraint is prohibited. Furthermore, physical restraint may be

implemented only by Student Personnel who have been trained in accordance with this Policy to

protect the care, welfare, dignity and safety of the student . . . . The Defendants violated West

Clermonts own Bylaws and Policies by mechanically restraining Kevin, by placing and keeping

him prone. and by failing to protect his care, welfare, dignity and safety.

24. As part of its planning for Kevins education, West Clermont created an essential

Behavior Plan for Kevin to describe his needs and to inform the responsive conduct of the

officials responsible for his welfare. Among other things, the Behavior Plan identified that

Kevins behavior also seems to be exacerbated when provided attention for disruptive

behavior. Also: During tantrums Kevin is likely to engage in aggression toward staff and

sometimes peers. Staff indicates he is more difficult to physically manage during intense

outbursts. The following behavior plan includes positive strategies currently in place to

proactively prevent difficulties and teach Kevin appropriate replacement behaviors. in addition

to a crisLc plan to lie/p keep Kevin and others safe during intense burst of behavior (emphasis

added).

25. Kevins behavior plan required that staff working directly with Kevin needs to

be trained in safe physical management All staff working with Kevin needs to be trained in

the behavior plan cz;zcl implement the plan as written (emphasis added).

6


26. The target behaviors in Kevins behavior plan included aggression (hitting,

kicking, scratching, throwing items, biting) and disruptive behaviors (throwing materials and

tipping furniture). The behavior plan directed staff to [u]se a calm matter of fact tone in all

interactions with Kevin and that The more talking the more escalated Kevin becomes!! (all

emphasis in original).

27. Kevins behavior plan added Yelling at or arguing with Kevin is considered a

challenge and will usually escalate matters to a physical confrontation (all emphasis in

original).

28. The behavior plan had a Crisis Plan within it. The Crisis Plan directed the

adults responsible for Kevins welfare: Once Kevin has become physical, only one person

should talk to Kevin . . . . A CPI [Crisis Prevention Institute] hold should only be used as a last

resort. Kevin becomes more aggravate[d] when more people are in the room.

29. Needless to say, handcuffing and prone restraint are not CPI holds.

30. Kevins behavior plan instructed the adults responsible for Kevin how to

administer CPI Trained Holds: During holds, Kevins airway should be continually

monitored. While Kevin is being restrained [with CPI holds], he usually screams to be let go,

and name calls. Kevin is instructed by the team that as soon as he is quiet and still, the team will

walk away from him and remind that he is to go sit in the swing when they let him go. This is

repeated periodically throughout the restraint in a calm, nonthreatening manner.

31. After a CPI hold is released, the Behavior Plan specifies that the individuals

attending to Kevin should help him physically cool down by placing a fan to blow air on him and

providing him with a cold drink. The plan requires that the staff give Kevin the option to swing

until he has completely calmed down and is able to return to the classroom

7


32. Siekbert, Robinson, Hatfield, Union Township, and West Clermont violated

Union Township policies and procedures, West Clermont policies and procedures, State of Ohio

policies and regulations, and Kevins particularized Behavior Plan, all proscribing the use against

Kevin of mechanical restraints like handcuffs and proscribing the use of prone positions. In

fact, the Defendants siuzziltaneously applied to Kevin both mechanical restraints and prolonged

prone positioning.

33. On September 11. 2014, while in attendance at Aspire Academy. Kevin

accidentally broke his ear buds for his iPad and became very upset. Kevin began shouting and

throwing sonic objects. He struck Aspire Academy staff and attempted to bite when they

restrained him. About eight adults entered the room and it was very noisy. Two individuals

unsuccessfully tried to hold Kevin.

34. Approximately 10 minutes after Kevin became upset, the West Clermont staff

called School Resource Officer Siekbert. Defendant Siekbert arrived a few minutes later,

preempted Kevins Behavior Plan and State of Ohio and West Clermont policy, and assisted

West Clermont staff to lower Kevin to a prone position. Siekbert then placed handcuffs on Kevin

behind Kevins back and left him prone. Defendants Robinson and Hatfield assisted Siekbert in

securing the mechanical restraint and prone positioning. Hatfield further increased the risk of

Kevin becoming asphyxiated by placing a pillow under his head. Defendants Siekbert,

Robinson, and I-Iatfield acted knowingly and recklessly and disregarded the substantial and

unjustifiable risk of injury to Kevin.

35. About five minutes after Siekbert handcuffed Kevin and placed him in a prone

position other Union Township Police Department officers arrived in the room where Kevin was

prone and handcuffed.

8


36. West Clermont staff called Plaintiff Debbie House during the incident and spoke

with her for about nine minutes. Nevertheless, nobody informed Kevins mom that they had

called Siekbert and did not inform her that Siekbert and others had mechanically restrained

Kevin with handcuffs and had placed him in a prone position.

37. Almost 30 minutes into the incident, and after Kevin had been handcuffed and

placed prone, a West Clermont staff person called Debbie House crying. The staff person

informed Kevins mom that the police had placed Kevin in handcuffs and he was lying on the

floor screaming. In Houses words: I thought I was going to throw up. Another West

Clermont official took the phone and told Kevins mom that they were not going to press

charges.

38. While Kevin was handcuffed and prone, Defendants Siekbert and Robinson,

working with other officials, forced Kevin to swallow a medicine tablet.

39. Kevins father arrived at the school about 40 minutes into the incident and about

25 minutes after Kevin had been handcuffed and placed prone. Kevin was still lying prone on

the floor and screaming: Im going to jail. Im arrested. Even after Kevins father arrived

Siekbert would not release the handcuffs or change Kevins position until approved by his

supervisor.

40. Kevins seizure with mechanical and prone restraints was not justified at its

inception and was not jusEified in its continuation for an extended period of time.

41. The lack of pedagogical purpose, Kevins multiple disabilities, the known and

predictable adverse consequences, and the means used and extended time render the seizure and

use of force objectively unreasonable.

9


42. When the Defendants finally ended their mechanical and prone restraint, Kevins

father took Kevin home. Kevin was unable to return to Aspire Academy. 1-Ic instead now

attends the Clermont County Board of Developmental Disabilities Thomas A. Wildey Center.

43. The Affidavit of Alicia Cachat Logeman (Logeman Affidavit). M.Ed.. State of

Ohio recognized BCBA, Board Certified Behavioral Analyst. describes Kevin and what he

confronted from his perspective:

Autism is a disorder of brain development and is commonly characterizedby difficulties with communication, social interactions, and repetitivebehaviors. Kevin communicates verbally, but verbal individuals withautism can struggle with using functional language to get their wants andneeds met. When Kevin was placed in a high anxiety situation(mechanical restraints in a prone position), he was not able to deescalateand process the situation. He was not able to use the language he doeshave, to appropriately express his fear, discomfort, and anxiety. Kevinreported he didnt understand why he was mechanically restrained. I-Icbelieved his headphones were broken and immediately reacted instead ofprocessing the situation. This is very common with individuals on theautism spectrum. After his headphones were broken, Kevin engaged ininappropriate behaviors when the team did not understand what he wastrying to communicate. Individuals with autism may also have troubleregulating their emotions and this leads to inappropriate responses tosituations. Kevin did not understand why he was handcuffed anddescribes the incident as going to war when he was handcuffed by thestaff at Aspire Academy.

44. The Logeman Affidavit confirms:

Kevins behavior plan clearly states the interventions that are appropriateand have proven successful with him in situations prior to September 11,2014. Kevin becomes more agitated when more people are in the roomwith him and once he has become physical, only one person should bespeaking to him in a calm, matter of fact tone. The behavior plan alsoclearly states that yelling or arguing with Kevin will usually escalatematters.

45. The behavioral expert also attested:

Despite the extremely detailed behavior plan that outlines specificinterventions, crisis planning, and interventions to use, the documentationby the school staff lists multiple violations of this plan. The district in their

10


voluntary police statements reports multiple violations of the behaviorplan. The district reports multiple people speaking with Kevin during theincident (no clear team leader identified), all individuals interacting didnot use safe physical management (ineffectively blocking strikes, lackappropriate CPI safe holds, and the use of mechanical restraints) andKevin was not directed to a preferred sensory activity. The school resourceofficer was not trained in crisis prevention intervention. Kevin washandcuffed, put into an extended prone position, and was not providedaccess to mental health and medical treatment after the incident.

46. The Logeman Affidavit emphasizes:

According to the Ohio Department of Education Policy of PositiveBehavior Interventions and Support, and Restraint and Seclusion, theprone restraint is prohibited under all circumstances, including emergencysafety situations. Any restraint that unduly risks serious harm or needlesspain to the student is also a prohibited practice.

47. The behavioral expert explained:

The behavior plan states that all individuals working with Kevin must betrained in safe physical management. The staff and resource officer did notdisplay the correct use of CPI. Instead of using the behavior support plantraining and CPI, Kevin was handcuffed and placed in the prone positionfor an extended period of time. This type of response might conceivablyoccur in a public place where the individuals encountering Kevin have notraining, or knowledge of his history of behaviors or diagnosis of autism.The staff involved had a specific behavior support plan, experience withKevin, and knowledge of his disabilities. The staff was also aware of hisreactions in frustrating or anxiety provoking situations. This training andinformation was disregarded, and mechanical restraints and an extendedprone position were utilized instead of his behavior plan.

48. Defendants West Clermont and Union Township have an agreement requiring that

Union Township provide a police officer known as a School Resource Officer to the school

districts Glen Este campus including Aspire Academy. That agreement provides that the police

officer will perform his/her regular police patrol duties in addition to those duties listed in the

School Resource Officer job description addendum . .

49. The previously referenced job description addendum emphasizes that the School

Resource Officer specializes in involvement with local school officials and students in the role

11


of advisor, mentor, and protector. The job description addendum further emphasizes that the

School Resource Officer [p]erforms duties under the guidelines, policies, procedures, and

operating orders of the police department.

50. According to the West Clermont agreement with Union Township, the School

Resource Officer is required to have knowledge of education techniques, . . crisis intervention,

school policies.

51. The agreement between West Clermont and Union Township required that

Union Township will hire, train, equip, supervise, manage, and evaluate appropriate personnel

selected for the School Resource Officer program.

52. Union Township Police Department General Order PM 6-02 Response to

Resistance instructs police officers: The amount and type of response to resistance used by

members will be determined in each situation by the circumstances facing the member at the

time. Factors involved in a members decision to use an appropriate response may include, but

are not limited to, any of the following . . . The . . . mental characteristics of the offender . .

Whenever any prisoner is suffering from an injury requiring treatment, first aid procedures will

begin as soon as possible afier the person is secured and the incident scene is safe.

53. Union Township Police Department General Order PM 6-02 Response to

Resistance, Section XVIII. A. requires that a supervisor conduct an investigation and submit a

report up the chain of command to the Operations Bureau Commander who makes a

recommendation to the Police Departments CEO. The CEO then makes a final

disposition and forwards it to the Administrative Services Commander. Section XVIII. A.

cross-references Section I.I.a-i which includes as reportable response to resistance incident

12


both takedowns, person taken to ground and any incident of unusual nature as determined by

the on-duty supervisor. Union Township has not provided these reports to the Plaintiff

54. Union Township has not properly trained, supervised, or managed its police

officers serving as School Resource Officers. The need to properly train, supervise, and manage

School Resource Officers with regard to the students at Aspire Academy, in particular, is an

obvious necessity and the risk of injury to students from Union Townships failure is very great

and foreseeable.

55. Upon information and belief. Union Township did not train Seikbert about the

aforementioned State of Ohio policies. \Vest Clermont policies, or the behavior plans of students

such as Plaintiff Kevin House.

56. A psychiatrist with Cincinnati Childrens Hospital Medical Center, Division of

Child Psvchiatiy. who has treated Kevin since 2008 concluded in 2015: Since the incident at

school in September . . . [2014], [Kevin] has also been displaying post-traumatic stress

symptoms. including flashbacks, nightmares, and avoidance I have personally witnessed him

recoiling when hc is in our lobby and a security officer walks past, in which case he will grab

and hug his mother. This represents a definite change from his previous behavior and level of

anxiety. and it has now gone on for a duration consistent with PTSD. We are trying to provide

medication treatment for this, but the symptoms persist and worsen at times.

57. Kevin had to be taken to the hospital for an emergency visit on September 17,

2014, because of increased anxiety, self-abuse, and perseverations.

58. Kevin obsesses about the September 11, 2014, incident daily. He has

developmentally, socially, and emotionally regressed to the point of carrying a stuffed animal as

a protector with him when meeting new people. He also sleeps with stuffed animals for

13


protection. Pie frequently mentions that he thought he was going to be killed. Kevin limits his

access to the community due to the fear of being arrested. He often requires rescue medication to

control ovenvhelming anxiety. Long-term, Kevins opportunity for employment as well as living

independently from his parents (with support) in the community has dramatically decreased due

to his overwhelming anxiety and fear of leaving the house. He requires long-tern psychological

care to help him diminish the effects of the incident but he will never forget what happened to

him.

59. In addition to significant and ongoing emotional distress, Kevin experienced

physical pain and injury during and after the seizure, restraint, and use of excessive force

described in this Complaint including, but not limited to, significant bruising.

60. Kevin remains enrolled as a student in the West Clermont Local School District

even though he now attends Wildey. West Clermont pays the Clermont County Board of

Developmental Disabilities for the cost of Kevins attendance at Wildey.

61. Upon information and belief, the Defendants do not use handcuffs and extended

prone restraint in response to conduct that is expected and predictable for typical students in the

manner the Defendants did with Kevin.

62. Upon information and belief, the Defendants do not expose typical students to the

risk of serious physical and emotional injury for conduct that is expected and predictable for

those typical students in the manner the Defendants did with Kevin.

63. On September 17, 2014, West Clermont officials informed Debbie House that if

Kevin behaved the same way again that Yes, if it happened again we would do the same thing

again because that was West Clermonts policy. West Clermont also informed Debbie I-louse

that she was fortunate that Kevin had not been tased and that the Union Township Police

14


Department did not have to follow West Clermonts and the State of Ohios ban on mechanical

and prone restraints. West Clermont officials asserted that the police were in charge and that

West Clermont had no responsibility for what occurred to Kevin. On September 30, 2014,

Defendant Robinson told Debbie House that Kevins Behavior Plan did not need any substantive

changes Because this plan worked and 1 did not want to get hit.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

DENIAL OF PLAINTIFFS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO BE FREE FROMUNREASONABLE SEIZURE AND EXCESSIVE FORCE42 U.S.C. 1983

64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

65. The totality of circumstances described in this Complaint including Kevins

multiple disabilities, existing legal and policy proscriptions on mechanical and prone restraints,

officials ignoring the detailed plans for controlling Kevins predictable behavior, and the serious

foreseeable injuries to Kevin mandate the conclusion that Defendants Siekbert. Robinson, and

Flatlield acted unreasonably and without proper justification.

66. Defendants Siekbert, Robinson, and 1-latfield deprived Kevin of his Fourth

Amendment entitlements to be free from unreasonable seizure and free from excessive force.

COUNT II

DENIAL OF PLAINTIFFS FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT LIBERTY RIGHTS TO BEFREE FROM EXCESSIVE FORCE, FREE FROM UNREASONABLE RESTRICTIONSON BODILY INTEGRITY, AND DENIAL OF RIGHT TO PROPER CARE WHILE IN

GOVERNMENT CUSTODY42 U.S.C. 1983


68. Defendants Siekbert. Robinson, and Hatfield deprived Kevin of his Fourteenth

Amendment entitlement to be free from improper restrictions on his bodily integrity and free

15


from excessive force, and deprived Kevin of his right to proper care while in government

custody.

COUNT Ill

DENIAL OF PLAINTIFFS FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EQUALPROTECTION OF THE LAW42 U.S.C. 1983


70. Upon information and belief, Defendants Siekbert, Robinson, and Hatfield have

not and do not leave non-disabled students handcuffed and prone for 30 minutes. Their

discriminatory conduct deprived Kevin of his 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the

laws.

COUNT IV

DEFENDANT UNION TOWNSHIPS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FAILURE TO TRAIN42 U.S.C. 1983


72. Union Township knew that its policy and custom of failing to train its police

officers how to respond to students in school subject to Ohios and West Clermonts ban on

mechanical and prone restraints would proximately cause injury to students like Kevin.

73. Union Township knew that its policy and custom of failing to train its police

officers how to respond to students in school subject to Behavior Plans would proximately cause

injury to students like Kevin.

74. The need for proper training how to respond to students with disabilities in school

like Kevin is so obvious that Union Townships failure to do so deprived Kevin of his Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizure and restraint, right to be free

16


from excessive force, right to be free from unreasonable restrictions on bodily integrity, and right

to receive proper care while in government custody.

COUNT V

DEFENDANT WEST CLERMONTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FAILURE TO TRAIN42 U.S.C. 1983


76. West Clermont knew that its policy and custom of failing to train its officials how

to respond to students in school subject to Ohios and West Clermonts ban on mechanical and

prone restraints would proximately cause injury to students like Kevin.

77. West Clermont knew that its policy and custom of failing to train its officials how

to respond to students in school subject to Behavior Plans would proximately cause injury to

students like Kevin.

78. The need for proper training how to respond to students with disabilities in school

like Kevin is so obvious that West Clermonts failure to do so deprived Kevin of his Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizure and restraint, right to be free

from excessive force, right to be free from unreasonable restrictions on bodily integrity, and right

to receive proper care while in government custody.

COUNT VI

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT/SECTION 503 OF THE REHABILITATIONACT OF 1973


80. In violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101. ci seq.

and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 29 U.S.C. 794. West Clermont and Union

17


Township unlawfully discriminated against students with behavioral disabilities like Kevin and

failed to provide reasonable modifications to those students.

COUNT VII

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILTIES EDUCATION ACT


82. West Clermonts systemic refusal to comply with Kevins Behavior Plan deprived

Kevin of his entitlement to a free and appropriate public education under the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act. 20 U.S.C. 1400. et seq. and caused Kevin significant regression.

COUNT VIII

ASSAULT AND BATTTERY


84. Defendants Siekbert. Robinson, and Hatfield acted intentionally and recklessly

and each committed assault and battery against Kevin.

COUNT IX

FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT


86. Defendants Siekbert. Robinson, and Hatfield acted intentionally and recklessly

and each falsely atTested and falsely imprisoned Kevin.

VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiffs request that this Court:

1. Declare that the actions described herein violated Kevin Houses rights under the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Americans with

Disabilities Act. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Individuals with

18


Disabilities Education Act. Further declare that West Clermonts and Union Townships

systemic deprivations of Kevins rights and the rights of similarly situated students are unlawful.

2. Issue an order enjoining the Defendants from using mechanical restraints and

prone restraints on students like Kevin. enjoining the Defendants from ignoring the terms of

Behavior Plans for students like Kevin, and otherwise enjoin the Defendants from depriving

students like Kevin of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

Stales Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Ohio regulations and policy, and common

law. Further enjoin West Clermonts and Union Townships systemic violations of Kevins

rights and the prospective systemic violations of the rights of similarly situated students.

3. Award Plaintiff Kevin I-louse compensatory damages.

4. Award Plaintiff Kevin House compensatory education and reimbursement for

expenditures occasioned by West Clermonts failure to provide him a free and appropriate public

education.

5. Award reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

6. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Richard GanulinRichard Ganulin. Esq. (0025642)Attorney at Law3662 Kendall AvenueCincinnati, Ohio 45208(513) 405-6696ranulin(1:mail.com

Attorney for Kevin House, by and through hisguardian, mother, and next friend Debbie LynnHouse

19


State ofbCount), k Uifl )

:uebbie Lynn House, guardian, mother, and next thend of Plaintiff Kevin House, beingduly sworn, says that the facmal allegations contained in this Complaint are tue to the best ofher knowledge.

.1!

Taken, sworn to and subscribed before me this L day of S pternber, 2015.

/1

KAJTLYN R. 8ROpjyPUBLICKentuc*y State At LaigeMy Commission Exptrcs 1O3/2o1s

VERIFICATION

)

F / 7Not Public

20

.1.


kevin house lawsuit against west clermont schools

Documents