Brian Seamons (Plaintiff) was a junior student at Sky View High School in Smithfield, Utah, and a member of the school’ s football team. On October 11, 1993, Brian was assaulted in the locker room by his teammates. As he finished showering after practice, he was grabbed, forcibly restrained, and bound him to a towel rack with adhesive tape while his other teammates watched. To add humiliation, one of his teammates brought the girl he once dated to see him in his state. The next day, October 12, Brian together with his parents went to the police, school administrators and other authorities including his football coach and the school principal to report the said incident. On October 13, Brian and his parents had a meeting with his football coach, Doug Snow (Defendant) and school principal, Myron Benson (Defendant).
Coach Snow ensured Brian and his parents that he would support Brian’ s decision and encouraged him to remain on the team. Brian eventually decided to remain on his team and attended the meeting scheduled by Coach Snow to discuss the incident with his team captains. Coach Snow wanted to mend the feelings of his team since they have coming games and this would create distractions if the issue continues.
During the meeting, one of the captains and assailants, Dan Ward, expressed that Brian owed the team an apology for reporting the incident to authorities instead of resolving the conflict internally since the team already apologized to Brian publicly. Coach Snow expressed disagreement on Ward’ s statement and claimed that his goal was to resolve the conflict between Brian and his teammates. According to Snow, he conveyed that Brian needed to have the readiness to “ forgive and forget and apologize” before returning to the team.
Coach Snow gave Brian a time to think through the situation before deciding. Brian decided that he will not apologize to his teammates. This time Coach Snow that they can’ t have him on the team. Brian Seamons filed a civil action against his football coach, school principal and school district under 42 U. S.C. § 1983. The district court has granted summary judgment in favor of all the defendants. Brian appealed this action to this court. Issues: Whether or not the district court erred in their decision to grant all the defendants the motion to dismiss all of Brian Seamons’ claims? Holding: The United States Court of Appeals, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’ s dismissal of all claims except the free speech claim.
The court remanded the district court’ s decision and held that Brian Seamons properly stated a claim under First Amendment and the district court’ s dismissal had been premature. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED with respect to defendants Douglas Snow and the Cache County School District, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The judgment with respect to Defendant Myron Benson is AFFIRMED. Rationale: According to the United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit, they have reviewed the whole record of summary judgment in the light that is most favorable to the party contrasting the summary judgment based on Weir v.
Anaconda Co. , 773 F. 2d 1073, 1079 (10th Cir. 1985) and Riley v. Brown & Root, Inc. , 896 F. 2d 474, 476 (10th Cir. 1990). Finally, if the district court made any findings of fact, they are not permitted to the reverence due to findings of fact made after a trial on undecided factual issues based on Riley, 896 F. 2d at 476-77 & n.
5 which ruled that “ determinations made in ruling on summary judgment are not reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard of Rule 52(a), but are reviewed under Rule 56(c) to ascertain whether there is an absence of any genuine issue of material fact. ” Additional comments: I agree with the decision of the Court of Appeals to remand the decision of the district court dismissing Brian’ s claim of free speech under the First Amendment.
I believe that Brian should have been tried accordingly and the district court should have reviewed the facts presented by both parties before deciding to dismiss the summary judgment to warrant time in the federal courts. Additional question: Should a 16- or 17-year-old high school football player alleged to have committed an act of hazing to be tried as an adult? Why or why not? For me, a 16 or 17-year-old high school football player alleged to have committed an act of hazing should not be tried as an adult.
I believe that students aged 16-17 years old are still not adults as their cognitive skills are still developing. They are still children by heart. Their behaviors are still impulsive and they still do not have the sense of minding the consequences of their actions. If they have committed an act of hazing, they probably see this action as a tradition of their organization and since no one has really intervened in them and told them it is illegal to do so, they may have established such acts as legal or allowable.
I believe they just lack guidance and proper intervention; they should be given a chance to be tried not in the adult criminal justice system.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples