Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5

COLLINS & COLLINS, L.L.P. By: JOSEPH E. COLLINS Attorneys for Plaintiff Arizona Bar #018289 10801 North 32nd Street, Suite 3 Phoenix, Az., 85028 (602) 788-7227 ===================================================================== IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

6 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a claim for a violation of equal protection. The motion outlines what the law is. Defendant s simplify what they believe the law to be in her response. 3. The facts cited by Plaintiff were proven by a preponderance of the evidence and 2. 1. The court listened to the evidence at trial and has had a list of facts by both the and IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA ===================================================================== In Re The Matter of: ) ) KENNETH & TOWANDA LYON, ) Case Number CV03-2306PHX-JAT for TARALYN D. LYON, ) ) ) ) ) )

ESTRALLA FOOTHILLS HIGH SCHOOL,) et al. ) ) Defendant. ) ===================================================================== REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL - AND - MOTION TO STRIKE EXHIBIT Plaintiff Replies to the Response of Defendants as follows:

Plaintiff and the defendant. Additional fact are not necessary. PLAINTIFF PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH A "CLASS OF ONE DISCRIMINATION It seems the legal standard is in dispute as to what a Plaintiff must show to prove

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT

Document 100

Filed 08/18/2006

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3

showed that Plaintiff had meet her burden to at least have the jury consider the issue and not have it snatched away as the evidence should have been viewed as a whole and all possible inferences in favor of defendant given. Shakey's, Inc. v. Covalt, 704 F.2d 426, 430 (9th Cir.1983). However,

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 involvement. 23 24 25 26 27 28 8. Defendants argue that hey have a zero tolerance policy. There was no testimony 6. The girl that brought the alcohol and gave it to Plaintiff without her knowing its like saying that all blacks in the south were treated the same and therefore there is no equal protection violation. The court and the defendants must look at what a class consists of. Those issues are addressed by Plaintiff in her motion. 5. The three girls involved in the incident where not the same and therefore similar the court erroneously weighed the evidence and did not look at all the evidence to make a determination. 4. Defendant's attempt to paint this case as only involving three students. Those three

involved in the incident and none others. That is inappropriate. Second just because the three girls allegedly received the same punishment then equal protection was not violated. That would be

treatment was not warranted.

contents was more culpable than the other two. She did not have similar grades See Exhibit 18. Although Plaintiff acknowledged on the stand and in her deposition that there was some similar treatment she did not have first hand knowledge. 7. The other girl involved in the incident did not have similar grades or school

of a zero tolerance policy and the evidence is to the contrary. 9. Defendant argues that she was "under district policy " similarly situated to the

other two students. That however is not the case, the jury should have been able to determine if

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT

Document 100

Filed 08/18/2006

Page 2 of 6

1 2 3

she was similarly situated and all the evidence was inconsistent with the testimony as to what the policy was. 10. Defendant argues that the other students who received a 10-day suspension where

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 unequally. However they deliberately did not follow their own policy. The question of intent should have been given to the jury. 13. Plaintiff is not arguing strict scrutiny, however the right dealt with in this case either quit school or where expelled. There was undocumented testimony that only two students fell into that category. The jury should have been able to weigh the evidence as to the veracity of the oral testimony in light of no evidence of the actual expulsion or withdrawal from school. 11. 12. Decedents allege that here was no evidence of intent. There was no evidence that any administrator said we are going to treat you

more accurately is as follows: Public education is not a "right" granted to individuals by the Constitution. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1298, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973). But neither is it merely some governmental "benefit" indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation. Both the importance of education in maintaining our basic institutions, and the lasting impact of its deprivation on the life of the child, mark the distinction. The "American people have always regarded education and [the] acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 400, 43 S.Ct. 625, 627, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923). We have recognized "the public schools as a most vital civic institution for the preservation of a democratic system of government," Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 230, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 1575, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963) (BRENNAN, J., concurring), and as the primary vehicle for transmitting "the values on which our society rests." Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76, 99 S.Ct. 1589, 1594, 60 L.Ed.2d 49 (1979). "[A]s ··· pointed out early in our history, ··· some degree of education is necessary to prepare citizens to participate effectively and intelligently in our open political system if we are to preserve freedom and independence." Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 221, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1536, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972). And these historic "perceptions of the public schools as inculcating fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system have been confirmed by the observations of social scientists." Ambach v. Norwick, supra, 411 U.S., at 77, 99 S.Ct., at 1594. In addition, education provides the basic tools by which individuals

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT

Document 100

Filed 08/18/2006

Page 3 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 14. 20 21 22 23 24 25 15. 26 27 28

might lead economically productive lives to the benefit of us all. In sum, education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society. We cannot ignore the significant social costs borne by our Nation when select groups are denied the means to absorb the values and skills upon which our social order rests. In addition to the pivotal role of education in sustaining our political and cultural heritage, denial of education to some isolated group of children poses an affront to one of the goals of the Equal Protection Clause: the abolition of governmental barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit. Paradoxically, by depriving the children of any disfavored group of an education, we foreclose the means by which that group might raise the level of esteem in which it is held by the majority. But more directly, "education prepares individuals to be self-reliant and self-sufficient participants in society." Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, 406 U.S., at 221, 92 S.Ct., at 1536. Illiteracy is an enduring disability. The inability to read and write will handicap the individual deprived of a basic education each and every day of his life. The inestimable toll of that deprivation on the social economic, intellectual, and psychological well-being of the individual, and the obstacle it poses to individual achievement, make it most difficult to reconcile the cost or the principle of a status-based denial of basic education with the framework of equality embodied in the Equal Protection Clause.FN20 What we said 28 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), still holds true: Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS CLAIM Plaintiff request the court to grant her a new trial on the dismissed claim of due

process and show the court that the facts at trial allow the claim to be heard. Plaintiff could not have argued substantive due process before the state court, because Plaintiff was denied the right to gather evidence in that case and in this case prior to the decision for summary judgement. MOTION TO STRIKE The email from the juror is evidence of what a reasonable juror could have done.

That is the legal standard. It was an unsolicited statement from the juror. If Defendant wishes to cross examine the juror his deposition may be noted. However, Defendant cites as a basis for their

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT

Document 100

Filed 08/18/2006

Page 4 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

motion, Fed. R. Evid. 606 (b). That reliance is misplaced. Rule 606 (b) states: Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Nor may a juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror concerning a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying be received for these purposes. Fed. R. Evid. 606 (b) 16. There was no verdict to inquire into.

WHEREFORE, the court should set the matter for trial. Dated August 18, 2006 COLLINS & COLLINS L.L.P /s// 018289 jec ______________________________ JOSEPH E. COLLINS Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT

Document 100

Filed 08/18/2006

Page 5 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ` ______________________________ JOSEPH E. COLLINS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was hand delivered, not mailed, to Respondent on August 18, 2006 to:

Georgia A. Staton, Bar #004863 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 /s// 018289 jec

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT

Document 100

Filed 08/18/2006

Page 6 of 6