Doe 1 v. Boulder Valley School District No. RE-2

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 1, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JANE DOE #1; JANE DOE #2;
JANE DOE #3,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. No. 12-1423
(D.C. No. 1:11-CV-02107-PAB-KLM)
BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL (D. Colo.)
DISTRICT NO. RE-2; CHRIS KING;
GINGER RAMSEY; MIKE LOWE;
MARK SCHMIDT; MATT SCHMIDT;
JASON WANEKA; JASMINE MASSE,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
TRAVIS JOHN MASSE,
Defendant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Before HARTZ, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge, and EBEL, Circuit
Judge.
Until he was caught and criminally prosecuted, high school teacher
Travis Masse engaged in sexual misconduct with female students under the age of
eighteen, including sending them sexually explicit text messages, requesting that they
send him nude pictures of themselves, and persuading them to have sex with him.
The plaintiffs in this suit were three students who were subjected to Mr. Masse’s
misconduct. They brought suit against Mr. Masse, his employer Boulder Valley
School District No. RE-2 (BVSD), his supervisors (including the district
superintendent, the school principal, and the school assistant principal/athletic
director), and other school employees under three statutes: Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (Title IX); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and
Colorado’s mandatory child-abuse reporting law, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-304.
Except for Mr. Masse, defendants moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Employing the principles set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-80 (2009),
and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007), the district court
concluded that the majority of the allegations in the amended complaint failed to
state a claim. Accordingly, it dismissed all but the § 1983 claim against Mr. Masse
and the Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-304 claim against another school employee.
Plaintiffs appealed.
-2-
Because the dismissal order did not resolve all claims against all defendants,
this court initially abated the appeal. The district court then granted plaintiffs’
motion to enter judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), making the dismissal a final,
appealable decision. See McBeth v. Himes, 598 F.3d 708, 720 (10th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, we exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review a
Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, accepting as true all well-pleaded factual allegations
in the complaint and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
Commonwealth Prop. Advocates, LLC v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc.,
680 F.3d 1194, 1201 (10th Cir. 2011).
Our review is impeded by the brevity of plaintiffs’ appendix, which contains
only the district court docket sheet, the amended complaint, the district court’s orders
and judgment, and copies of certain legal authorities. It does not contain copies of
defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiffs’ response, or defendants’ reply. Our rules
require appellants to “file an appendix sufficient for considering and deciding the
issues on appeal.” 10th Cir. R. 30.1(A)(1). “A party who seeks to reverse the
decision of a district court must provide an adequate record for this court to
determine that error was committed.” Travelers Indem. Co. v. Accurate Autobody,
Inc., 340 F.3d 1118, 1119 (10th Cir. 2003). When faced with an inadequate
appendix, “we are impeded in determining what arguments [appellants] properly
preserved for appellate review,” Burnett v. Sw. Bell Tel., L.P., 555 F.3d 906, 908
(10th Cir. 2009), and “we are reluctant to overturn a district court’s ruling without
-3-
being able to examine the . . . arguments it heard in making its ruling.” Questar
Pipeline Co. v. Grynberg, 201 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2000).
Notwithstanding the inadequate appendix, we have reviewed the parties’ legal
arguments. The district court carefully and thoroughly examined the allegations
against the various defendants. With the exception of the claim that the district court
allowed to proceed, we are not persuaded that the amended complaint “contain[s]
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face’” against these defendants. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570). Accordingly, identifying no reversible error, we affirm the district
court’s dismissal order filed on September 25, 2012, for substantially the reasons set
forth in that order.
Entered for the Court
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-4-