A.S. ex rel. Schaefer v. Lincoln County R-III School District, 4:19 CV 91 CDP. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20190212a27
Visitors: 5
Filed: Feb. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 11, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CATHERINE D. PERRY , District Judge . Plaintiff A.S. brings this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants Lincoln County R-III School District and Joy Lillard, a district employee and assistant principal at Troy Buchanan High School, alleging that they violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in relation to his suspension from high school, including the manner by which they conducted his suspension hearing. A.S. also seeks judicial review of the distr
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CATHERINE D. PERRY , District Judge . Plaintiff A.S. brings this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants Lincoln County R-III School District and Joy Lillard, a district employee and assistant principal at Troy Buchanan High School, alleging that they violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in relation to his suspension from high school, including the manner by which they conducted his suspension hearing. A.S. also seeks judicial review of the distri..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY, District Judge.
Plaintiff A.S. brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Lincoln County R-III School District and Joy Lillard, a district employee and assistant principal at Troy Buchanan High School, alleging that they violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in relation to his suspension from high school, including the manner by which they conducted his suspension hearing. A.S. also seeks judicial review of the district's decision to suspend him, as provided by Mo. Rev. Stat. § 167.161. Because I do not find A.S.'s pleading to be so vague or ambiguous that defendants cannot reasonably prepare a response, I will deny defendants' motion for more definite statement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e); Tinder v. Lewis Cty. Nursing Home Dist., 207 F.Supp.2d 951, 959-60 (E.D. Mo. 2001).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion for more definite statement [5] is denied.
Source: Leagle
