United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division
ROBERT T. LAGERVALL, Plaintiff,
MISSOULA COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PRINCIPAL TED FULLER, and JENNIE HAINES, Defendants.
ORDER, AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Jeremiah C. Lynch, United States Magistrate Judge.
the Court is Defendants Missoula County Public Schools, Ted
Fuller and Jennie Haines's Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 motion for
summary judgment requesting this case be dismissed. Plaintiff
Robert Lagervall did not file a response to Defendants'
motion. For the reasons discussed, the Court recommends the
motion be granted and this action be dismissed.
time of the events alleged in Lagervall's complaint, his
son, P.L., was a student at Sentinel High School in Missoula,
Montana. Apparently, P.L. is an individual with disabilities.
High School is within the Missoula County Public Schools
district. Ted Fuller is the principal at Sentinel, and
Virginia Haines is the Special Education Coordinator at
November 4, 2015, an issue arose as to the Sentinel
teachers' treatment and education of P.L., so Lagervall
went to Sentinel to visit with school administrators,
including Fuller, about the issue. The encounter escalated to
some degree of confrontation due to, as Lagervall recognizes,
his own disabling condition or conditions. As a result of the
confrontation, Fuller decided Lagervall was no longer welcome
on the premises as Sentinel. Fuller engaged Sentinel's
resource officer, Officer Monaco, to prevent Lagervall from
entering the premises, and to inform Lagervall, in writing,
that he was not permitted on the premises.
commenced this action alleging Defendants violated his rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”). Specifically, he contends Defendants
violated regulatory provisions promulgated pursuant to the
ADA at 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 (prohibiting discrimination),
§ 35.134 (prohibiting retaliation or coercion), and
§ 35.160 (requiring effective communications).
Applicable Law - Summary Judgment Standards
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) entitles a party to summary
judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” In deciding a motion for
summary judgment, the Court views the evidence in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all
justifiable inferences in the non-moving party's favor.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255
(1986); Betz v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 504
F.3d 1017, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2007).
Court notes that Lagervall has not filed any brief in
opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment,
and the time for doing so has passed. Nonetheless, the Ninth
Circuit has made clear that a district court may not grant
“summary judgment simply because a party fails to file
an opposition or violates a local rule, ” and the court
must “analyze the record to determine whether any
disputed material fact [is] present.” Ahanchian v.
Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258
(9th Cir. 2010). See also Martinez v.
Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003)
(explaining that “a nonmoving party's failure to
comply with local rules does not excuse the moving
party's affirmative duty under Rule 56 to demonstrate its
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law”).
because Lagervall is proceeding pro se the Court must
construe his documents liberally and give them “the
benefit of any doubt” with respect to Defendants'
summary judgment motion. Frost v. Symington, 197
F.3d 348, 352 (9th Cir. 1999). See also
Erickson v. Pardus 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Lagervall's son, P.L., was a student at Sentinel High
School, Lagervall engaged in a pattern of recurring conduct
in his interactions with Sentinel staff members regarding
either P.L.'s education or his conduct at Sentinel. At
times, when staff would contact Lagervall by telephone to
discuss issues about P.L., Lagervall would become agitated,
upset and would terminate the phone conversation. (Doc. 25-1
at 2.) Typically, after a terminated phone call he would
arrive at Sentinel “in an escalated, dysregulated
state, demanding information, responses to questions, and
disrupting school operations.” (Doc. 25-1 at 2.)
record reflects Lagervall engaged in various forms of other
conduct at times while on the premises at
Sentinel. He would:
(1.) raise his voice when speaking with Sentinel employees,
and yell at the employees;
(2.) raise his voice when speaking with Sentinel employees at
meetings concerning P.L., disrupt those meetings, and walk
out on some meetings because he was angry;
(3.) act aggressively towards, and intimidate Sentinel
(4.) hang up the phone in the middle of telephone
conversations with ...