MARK HOWLETT, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH ELIZABETH HOWLETT, HIS MOTHER, NATURAL GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND, APPELLANT,
v.
SCOTT ROSE, AS SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; WILLIAM GREY, THOMAS PETIT AND THE SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed its prior dismissal of a Section 1983 civil rights action brought by a minor student against a school superintendent and school board. The court held that the trial court improperly dismissed the action and clarified that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required for Section 1983 claims.
School boards are not immune from Section 1983 actions under federal law, though liability requires action pursuant to official policy rather than mere respondeat superior. Exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required for Section 1983 actions. The trial court's dismissal was improper and must be reversed.
[1] A state court cannot invoke state law immunity doctrines to defeat a federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. …
[2] School boards are generally not immune under federal law from actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. …
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“School boards have generally been held not to be immune under federal law from a 1983 action.”
Establishes that federal law does not grant school boards immunity from Section 1983 civil rights suits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMark Howlett, a minor, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Scott Rose, Superintendent of Schools for Pinellas County, and the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is back before us on reversal and remand from the United States Supreme Court. Howlett v. Rose, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 2430, 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990). This court had previously, on the authority of Hill v. Department of Corrections, State of Florida, 513 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1064, 108 S.Ct. 1024, 98 L.Ed.2d 989 (1988), affirmed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of appellant’s action against appellees pursuant to the Judicial Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Howlett v. Rose, 537 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 545 So. 2d 1367 (Fla.1989). The United States Supreme Court, in reversing the previous decision of this court and remanding the matter to us, held that we improperly applied Hill.
In previously deciding this case on the authority of Hill, we did not reach two other issues raised by appellant, i.e., whether under federal law a Florida school board is immune from a section 1983 action, and whether it is necessary to exhaust state administrative remedies prior to bringing an action under section 1983.
School boards have generally been held not to be immune under federal law from a 1983 action. Monell v. New York City, Dep’t of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). However, a school board does not appear to be liable even under federal law on a respondeat superior theory for the constitutional torts of its employees absent the employee’s action pursuant to official board policy. St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 108 S.Ct. 915, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988); Monell, 436 U.S. at 691, 98 S.Ct. at 2036. That question has not been addressed in this case either by this court or the trial court and, on remand, if that question poses an issue in the proceeding it should then be addressed by the trial court. See Howlett v. Rose, 110 S.Ct. 2430, 2433, nn. 2, 3.
Exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to an action under section 1983. Patsy v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982). The order of the trial court dismissing appellant’s action is, therefore, reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Howlett v. Rose.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of the City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978)
- Patsy v. Bd. of Regents of the State of Fla., 457 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1982)
- United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1954)
- City of ST. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (U.S. 1988)
- Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (U.S. 1990)
- Hill v. Dep't OF Corr., 513 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1987)
- Fields v. Allen, 484 U.S. 1064 (U.S. 1988)
- Poschwatta v. United States, 484 U.S. 1064 (U.S. 1988)
- Bostick v. State, 537 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Howlett v. Rose, 537 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)