Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 156

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

CHRISTY COLE, on her own behalf
and on behalf of her minor
daughter, K.C.
PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO.:
5:17-CV-01629-SMH-MLH

VERSUS

CHIEF JUDGE: S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

WEBSTER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
JOHNNY ROWLAND, in his official
capacity as Superintendent of the
Webster Parish School District, and
DENNY FINLEY, in his official capacity as
Principal of Lakeside Junior/Senior
High School
DEFENDANTS

DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come Defendants, WEBSTER
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, JOHNNY ROWLAND, and DENNY FINLEY, who, for answer
to the Complaint of the Plaintiff, file their original Answer and Affirmative Defenses. In
connection therewith, Defendants will show the Court as follows:
I.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
A.

Defendants specifically deny any liability in this case under any of the

theories of recovery articulated by Plaintiff and further deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any
of the relief requested in her Complaint.
B.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the Constitution, or any other statute,
constitutional theory, or legal authority.

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 157

C.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Plaintiff’s claims, or a portion thereof, are

barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Alternatively, Plaintiff’s allegations of
sporadic and isolated incidents involving third parties and those who are now deceased
over a 14 year period have impaired Defendants ability to respond, and such claims are
barred by the doctrine of laches.
D.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendants assert that this Court lacks

jurisdiction over this controversy or over individual claims, as Plaintiff lacks standing to
assert the rights of third parties.
E.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendants assert that they did not deprive

Plaintiff of any constitutionally protected rights.
F.

Notwithstanding the foregoing and without admitting either liability or that

Plaintiff was damaged in any way, Defendants further assert that Plaintiff has failed to
mitigate her damages, if any. Accordingly, to the extent the Plaintiff has failed to mitigate,
minimize or abate any damages which she has allegedly suffered, her damages, if any,
should be adjusted accordingly.
G.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendants assert their right to raise

additional defenses that become apparent throughout discovery and other factual
development of this case.
H.
II.

Plaintiff failed to make amicable demand upon Defendant.

ORIGINAL ANSWER
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing defenses, Defendants deny each and

every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b), except

2

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 158

those expressly admitted herein. Defendants respond to the corresponding sections of
paragraphs of Plaintiff’s Complaint as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.

The allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

require no answer by these Defendants. To the extent that an answer is required,
Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and expressly deny
that their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
2.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 2 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint and deny that any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
Defendants affirmatively show that Plaintiff has attempted to weave unsupported
allegations of isolated actions by third parties over a 14 year period into a custom, policy
or practice of constitutional violations.

If such alleged actions did occur, which is not

admitted, Plaintiff failed to call same to Defendant’s attention so that such issues could be
addressed prompted. Rather, Plaintiff intentionally delayed for such a period of time as to
deprive Defendant of the ability to respond.
3.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 3 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint and deny that their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
4.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 4 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein and deny that
their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
5.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 5 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint as same are not allegations of fact but are statements of her beliefs.
Defendants further deny that their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
3

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 159

6.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 6 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint, deny that Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief, and deny that their
actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7.

The allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

require no answer by these Defendants. To the extent that an answer is required,
Defendants deny that Plaintiff has sufficient factual basis upon which to assert a claim
against Defendants under the First or Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and
deny that their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
8.

The allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

require no answer by these Defendants. To the extent that an answer is required,
Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint and deny that their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
9.

The allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

require no answer by these Defendants. To the extent that an answer is required,
Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint and deny that their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
PARTIES
10.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 10 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.

4

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 160

11.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 11 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein and deny that
any of their practices were unlawful or unconstitutional.
12.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 12 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein and deny that
any of their practices were unlawful or unconstitutional.
13.

It is admitted that K.C. is a junior currently enrolled at Lakeside High School.

Further answering, Defendants deny that any of their practices were unlawful or
unconstitutional.
14.

It is admitted that K.C. has been a student at schools of Webster Parish from

August 2006, but deny that its customs, policies, or practices were unlawful or
unconstitutional.
15.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 15 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
16.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 16 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
17.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 17 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein and
Defendants deny that any of their actions or practices were unlawful or unconstitutional.
18.

Defendants deny that K.C. has been “mocked by teachers.” All other

allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied for lack
of sufficient information to justify a belief therein and Defendants deny that any of their
actions or practices were unlawful or unconstitutional.
5

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 161

19.

The allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

are admitted.
20.

Defendant, WEBSTER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, admits the allegations

of fact contained within Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, but denies that any of its
actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
21.

Defendant, JOHNNY ROWLAND, admits his status as superintendent as of

July 1, 2017 and domicile. Further answering, Defendant, JOHNNY ROWLAND, denies
that any of his actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
22.

Defendant, DENNY FINLEY, admits his status as of July 1, 2017 and

domicile. Further answering, Defendant, DENNY FINLEY, denies that any of his actions
were unlawful or unconstitutional.
23.

The allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

call for a legal conclusion and require no answer by Defendants. To the extent that an
answer is required, the allegations contained within Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
are denied and Defendants expressly deny that any of their actions were unlawful or
unconstitutional.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
24.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 24 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint, expressly deny that any of their actions were unlawful or
unconstitutional and incorporate by reference all of the affirmative defenses and answers
in the preceding paragraphs.
25.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 25 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.
6

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 162

26.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 26 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.
27.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 27 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint as written.
28.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 28 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint as written.
29.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 29 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
30.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 30 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein and deny that
any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional. Such allegations are nothing more
that a partial quote of Wikipedia’s description of the subject cartoon.
31.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 31 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint as alleged and for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief
therein.
32.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 32 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
33.

It is admitted that Ana Lopez-Cole and K.C. were students at Central

Elementary School. All other allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 33 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein and
Defendants deny that any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
34.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 34 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
7

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 163

35.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 35 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint as written.
36.

It is admitted that voluntary student-led prayers were held at Central

Elementary and that some teachers allowed the students to pray before lunch. However,
Principal Marvin Jones discontinued this practice after receiving a complaint from Christy
Cole.
37.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 37 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.

Further

answering, Defendants assert that prayer was discontinued after receiving a complaint
from Christy Cole.
38.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 38 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint as written.
39.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 39 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint as written. Further answering, Defendants assert that at this time,
prayer was discontinued at Central Elementary after receiving a complaint from Christy
Cole.
40.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 40 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint as written.
41.

Defendants admit that Principal Jones discontinued prayer at Central

Elementary after receiving a complaint by Christy Cole. Further answering, Defendants
deny the allegations deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 41 as written.
42.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 42 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
8

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 164

43.

Defendants admit that Lisa Toland allowed students to volunteer to deliver

a prayer. All other allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 43 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
are denied as written and Defendants deny that any of their actions were unlawful or
unconstitutional.
44.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 44 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint as written.
45.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 45 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint as written.
46.

It is admitted that Team Impact performed for students and presented a

message of clean living and morality. All other allegations of fact contained within
Paragraph 46 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied as written.
47.

It is admitted that Team Impact performed for students and presented a

message of clean living and morality. All other allegations of fact contained within
Paragraph 47 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied as written.
48.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 48 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint and deny that any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
49.

A voluntary, student-led, student-initiated prayer was delivered in the

mornings at Lakeside, but this practice has been discontinued. Defendants assert that no
prayers occurred at student assemblies, at pep rallies or at all of the athletic games. The
remainder of the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 49 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
are denied as written. Further answering, Defendants deny that their actions were unlawful
or unconstitutional.

9

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 165

50.

It is admitted that Lakeside High School has a chapter of the Fellowship of

Christian Athletes. It is further admitted that this student group meets once a week during
the students’ lunch break. All other allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 50 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied and Defendants deny that their actions were unlawful or
unconstitutional.
51.

Defendants deny that any student at Lakeside was taken to the gym to be

“introduced” to the FCA. All other allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 51 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein
and Defendants deny that their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
52.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 52 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint as written and deny that any of their actions were unlawful or
unconstitutional.
53.

The allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 53 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

are denied as written and Defendants deny that their actions were unlawful or
unconstitutional.
54.

It is admitted that Lakeside students who were late to class because of FCA

attendance are excused for their absences just like any late arriving student attending any
other student club at Lakeside High School. All other allegations of fact contained within
Paragraph 54 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied as written and Defendants deny that any
of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
55.

It is admitted that movies were shown in Ms. Williamson’s class solely as a

supplement to the parenthood and adult responsibility curriculum. All other allegations of

10

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 166

fact contained within Paragraph 55 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied as written and
Defendants deny that any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
56.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 56 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint as written.
57.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 57 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied

as written and Defendants deny that any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
58.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 58 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint as written.
59.

It is admitted that an invocation was delivered during the eighth grade

graduation ceremony at Lakeside in May 2015. All other allegations of fact contained
within Paragraph 59 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied as written and Defendants deny
that any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
60.

The allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 60 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

are denied and Defendants deny that any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
61.

The allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 61 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
62.

The allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 62 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

are denied as written and Defendants deny that any of their actions were unlawful or
unconstitutional.
63.

The allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 63 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

are denied.
64.

A voluntary, student-led prayer was delivered in the morning at Lakeside. A

copy of the Lord’s Prayer was present on the school secretary’s desk in case a student,
11

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 167

who voluntarily decided to give the Lord’s Prayer, forgot the words. This practice has been
discontinued. All other allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 64 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint are denied and Defendants deny that any of their actions were unlawful or
unconstitutional.
65.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 65 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein.
66.

It is admitted that the students at Lakeside were allowed to give a voluntary

prayer, but this practice has been discontinued. All other allegations of fact contained
within Paragraph 66 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied for lack of sufficient information to
justify a belief therein and Defendants deny that any of their actions were unlawful or
unconstitutional.
67.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 67 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint and deny that any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
68.

It is admitted that Lakeside held its graduation at First Baptist Church in

Minden in May 2016. Further answering, Defendants assert that graduation was held at
this location due to inclement weather and capacity issues. All other allegations of fact
contained within Paragraph 68 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied and Defendants deny
that any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
69.

It is admitted that Lakeside’s graduation ceremony was held at City on a Hill

in Minden in May 2017. Further answering, Defendants assert that the graduation
ceremony was held at this facility because it provided for a greater capacity and due to
renovations that were being undertaken at First Baptist Church in Minden. All other

12

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 168

allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 69 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied and
Defendants deny that any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
70.

It is admitted that the graduation ceremony contained an invocation and

benediction. All other allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 70 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint are denied as written and Defendants deny that any of their actions were
unlawful or unconstitutional.
71.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 71 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein and deny that
any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
72.

It is admitted that Lakeside and other Webster Parish schools participate in

“See You at the Pole”, an event that is held before the designated school day begins. All
other allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 72 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied
for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein and Defendants deny that any of
their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
73.

It is admitted that “Fields of Faith” was held at Lakeside after school hours

and that this event was student-organized and student-led. All other allegations of fact
contained within Paragraph 73 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied for lack of sufficient
information to justify a belief therein and Defendants deny that any of their actions were
unlawful or unconstitutional.
74.

It is admitted that “Fields of Faith” was student-led and that the event was

promoted in the same manner that all other events were promoted. All other allegations
of fact contained within Paragraph 74 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied and Defendants
deny that any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
13

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 169

75.

It is admitted that Mynista has performed for students at Lakeside. Further

answering, Defendants contend that this performance was scheduled in an effort to
counsel students about the dangers of drugs and other vices, and any message he
delivered with Christian overtures was done of his own volition without any direction or
editorial control of the Webster Parish School Board. All other allegations of fact contained
within Paragraph 75 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied for lack of sufficient information to
justify a belief therein and Defendants deny that any of their actions were unlawful or
unconstitutional.
76.

It is admitted that Lakeside held an assembly entitled You Are Worth It to

impart a message to the students about the dangers of drinking and driving. All other
allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 76 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied for lack
of sufficient information to justify a belief therein and Defendants deny that any of their
actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
77.

It is admitted that the YAWI’s presentation was to caution teens and young

adults against drinking and driving and any Christian message by the speaker was done
of his own volition without any direction or editorial control of the Webster Parish School
Board. All other allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 77 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein and Defendants deny
that any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
78.

The allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 78 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein and Defendants deny
that any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.

14

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 170

79.

The allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 79 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

are denied as written. It is admitted that Mr. Baldridge did speak to those in attendance
about the dangers of drinking and driving. Defendants deny that any of their actions were
unlawful or unconstitutional.
80.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 80 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein. It is admitted
that Chief Nelson with the Ouachita Parish Fire Department was present at Mr. Baldridge’s
presentation; however, like Mr. Baldridge, Chief Nelson was there for the express purpose
of counseling students about the dangers of drinking and driving and any comments of
Chief Nelson were made of his own volition without any direction or editorial control of the
Webster Parish School Board. Defendants expressly deny that any of their actions were
unlawful or unconstitutional.
81.

The allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 81 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

are denied as written. It is admitted that a Veterans Day program was held at Lakeside
and a local state senator was invited to speak. Any comments the senator made at the
event were made of his own volition without any direction or editorial control of the Webster
Parish School Board. Defendants expressly deny that any of their actions were unlawful
or unconstitutional.
82.

The allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 82 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

are denied as written and Defendants deny that any of their actions were unlawful or
unconstitutional.

15

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 171

83.

The allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 83 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

are denied as written and Defendants deny that any of their actions were unlawful or
unconstitutional.
84.

The allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 84 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

are denied for lack of sufficient information to justify a belief therein and Defendants deny
that any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
85.
classroom.

It is admitted that students serving in-school suspension are sent to Ms. Hall’s
All other allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 85 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint are denied.
86.

It is admitted that Ms. Hall had these writings on her classroom wall; however,

these have been removed. All other allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 86 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied and Defendants deny that any of their actions were
unlawful or unconstitutional.
87.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph

87 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint and deny that any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
88.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph

88 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint and deny that any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
89.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph

87 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint and deny that any of their actions were unlawful or unconstitutional.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF: ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE VIOLATION
90.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph

90 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint and incorporate by reference its affirmative defenses and answers to

16

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 172

the preceding paragraphs in this Complaint. Defendants deny that any of their actions
were unlawful or unconstitutional.
91.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph

91 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.
92.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 92 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.
93.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 93 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.
94.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 94 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.
95.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 95 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.
96.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 96 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.
97.

Defendants deny the allegations of fact contained within Paragraph 97 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.
WHEREFORE, DEFENDANTS, WEBSTER PARISH SCHOOL, JOHNNY
ROWLAND, and DENNY FINLEY, PRAY that this Answer be deemed good and sufficient
and that, after legal delays and due proceedings are had, there be judgment herein in favor
of Defendants dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and at Plaintiff’s cost.

17

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 173

Defendants further pray for all such other general and equitable relief as may be
proper and this court competent to grant.
Respectfully submitted,
HAMMONDS, SILLS, ADKINS & GUICE, L.L.P.
1881 Hudson Circle
Monroe, Louisiana 71201
(318) 324-0101 - Telephone
(318) 322-5375 - Facsimile

BY:

s/ Jon K. Guice
JON K. GUICE, #20841

BY:

s/Neal L. Johnson, Jr.
NEAL L. JOHNSON, JR., #23149

BY:

s/Courtney T. Joiner
COURTNEY T. JOINER, #32878

BY:

s/Justin N. Myers
JUSTIN N. MYERS, #34005

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS,
WEBSTER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
JOHNNY ROWLAND, AND DENNY FINLEY

18

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 9 Filed 01/10/18 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 174

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing Defendants’ Original Answer
and Affirmative Defenses has this date been forwarded to all counsel for Plaintiff, by
depositing same in the United States mail with sufficient postage affixed thereto and
properly addressed to them as follows:
Mr. Bruce Hamilton
ACLU Foundation of Louisiana
P.O. Box 56157
New Orleans, LA 70156

Mr. Daniel Mach
Ms. Heather L. Weaver
American Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
915 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005

Monroe, Louisiana, this 10th day of January, 2018.

BY:

s/ Jon K. Guice
JON K. GUICE

BY:

s/Neal L. Johnson, Jr.
NEAL L. JOHNSON, JR.

BY:

s/Courtney T. Joiner
COURTNEY T. JOINER

BY:

19

s/Justin N. Myers
JUSTIN N. MYERS

 Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 10 Filed 01/10/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 175

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

CHRISTY COLE, on her own behalf
and on behalf of her minor
daughter, K.C.
PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO.:
5:17-CV-01629-SMH-MLH

VERSUS

CHIEF JUDGE: S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

WEBSTER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
JOHNNY ROWLAND, in his official
capacity as Superintendent of the
Webster Parish School District, and
DENNY FINLEY, in his official capacity as
Principal of Lakeside Junior/Senior
High School
DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come Defendants, WEBSTER
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, JOHNNY ROWLAND and DENNY FINLEY (collectively, the
"Defendants"), who and which respectfully submit this Memorandum In Opposition to the
Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs, Christy Cole and her minor daughter,
K.C. (collectively, the "Plaintiffs").1 For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' claims and
arguments in support of their Motion are either unfounded or have become entirely moot.
In either event, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proving each of the elements
required for a preliminary injunction, and this Court should deny their Motion.

1

Defendants submit the present Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction
out of an abundance of caution and in order to comply with the time constraints of Local Rule 7.5.
Defendants reserve their rights to supplement, amend or otherwise modify their Opposition in accordance
with any Notice of Motion Setting or other Scheduling Order that may be issued by this Court.

Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 10 Filed 01/10/18 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 176

I. BACKGROUND
On December 18, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the Webster Parish
School Board, its Superintendent, Johnny Rowland, and a school administrator, Denny
Finley, alleging violations of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. In support of
their action, Plaintiffs cite to various alleged activities and incidents occurring during the
tenure of Christy Cole's children, Ana Lopez-Cole and K.C. These events cover a near
fourteen-year span and involve numerous teachers and school administrators, many of
whom are now retired or deceased. Likewise, these alleged events involve several schools
throughout the District.
Along with their Complaint, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Plaintiff's Motion presents identical allegations to those asserted in their Complaint. In
particular, Plaintiffs attempt to support their Motion with reference to the following alleged
incidents or activities: (1) student-led prayer before school; (2) student-led prayer before
pep rallies, athletic events and assemblies; (3) a teacher's religious iconography; (4)
outside speakers or organizations prothelytizing during assemblies; (5) viewing of religious
videos; and (6) participation in student-led religious groups. In their Motion, Plaintiffs
request injunctive relief prohibiting some or all of these alleged activities. Nevertheless, as
set forth below, Plaintiffs' allegations are insufficient to merit such extraordinary relief.
Plaintiffs served Defendants with their Complaint and Motion on December 20,
2017, just one day before the Webster Parish School Board commenced its break for the
holiday season. The school system and its teachers, administrators, central office staff and
other employees were on break and otherwise unavailable from December 21, 2017, until
school resumed on January 8, 2018. Defendants and its counsel were therefore left with
2

Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 10 Filed 01/10/18 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 177

little time to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' action. Defendants have also been
left with little time to prepare their opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion. As set forth above,
Defendants submit the present opposition out of an abundance of caution, and with full
reservation of their rights to supplement and amend.
III. LAW AND ARGUMENT
A.

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS MOOT.
A case may become moot if: "(1) there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged

violation will recur; and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably
eradicated the effects of the alleged violation." Bell v. Tensas Parish Sch. Bd, 185
Fed.Appx. 326, 2006 WL 1684662 at *1 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing, County of Los Angeles v.
Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S.Ct. 1379, 1383, 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979)). Likewise, claims
for injunctive relief are moot where the allegedly harmful conduct has been discontinued.
In the instance case, a key factual premise for the harm alleged by Plaintiffs-student
led prayer over the school intercom or public announcement system-no longer exists.
Since the filing of the present action, the School Board has directed its schools and their
administrators to cease the practice of providing prayer at any point during the school day.
This directive bans any alleged practice of allowing students to volunteer to provide a
prayer at the commencement of the school day. Stated otherwise, the student prayer at
issue in Plaintiffs' Complaint and Motion is no longer occurring and there is no threat that
such a practice will resume in the future. While the School Board denies the occurrence
of such prayer, its interim actions eliminate any possible argument or need for injunctive
relief.

3

Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 10 Filed 01/10/18 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 178

Plaintiffs' allegations of prayer occurring when Ana Lopez-Cole and K.C. attended
elementary school over ten years ago are likewise moot. Similarly, alleged one-time
events, such as viewing isolated movies or animated programs, attending an assembly
involving a bodybuilding group in 2014, observing student prayer at a football in 2014 and
observing prayer at a graduation ceremony in 2014 are also insufficient to merit injunctive
relief. Finally, there is currently no religious iconography or other religious statements in
the classroom of Mechelle Hall, thereby mooting any need for injunctive relief to protect
students such as K.C. from exposure to such materials.
As recognized by the Supreme Court in City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95,
111, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1669, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief
based on an alleged past wrong must show that there is a real or immediate threat that he
will be wronged again. Plaintiffs' allegations concerning school prayer and Defendants'
impermissible involvement in religion cannot meet this threshold. These disparate
allegations of past conduct are insufficient to show that a future violation of Plaintiffs' rights
is likely. Considering the Webster Parish School Board's directives against school prayer,
Plaintiffs are not threatened with any future harm, and their Motion for Preliminary
Injunction is not entirely moot.
B.

PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
Even if this Court reaches the merits of Plaintiffs' Motion, it should be denied. The

United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has "cautioned repeatedly that a preliminary
injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should not be granted unless the party seeking
it has clearly carried the burden of persuasion." Lake Charles Diesel, Inc v. General Motors
Corp., 328 F.3d 192, 196 (5th Cir. 2003) (Internal Citations Omitted). Within this
4

Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 10 Filed 01/10/18 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 179

framework, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving each of the following elements:
(1) a substantial likelihood that [they] will prevail on the merits, (2) a
substantial threat that [they] will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not
granted, (3) [their] threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the
patty whom [they] seek to enjoin, and (4) granting the preliminary injunction
will not disserve the public interest.
Id. at 195-96. Plaintiffs cannot establish each of these elements, and therefore fall well
short of their heightened burden in seeking a disfavored injunction.
1.

Plaintiffs Cannot Establish a Substantial Threat of Irreparable Injury.

The decision by the Webster Parish School Board to prohibit prayer, whether
student-led or otherwise, over the intercom or public address systems of its schools
removes any threat of irreparable harm. As discussed above, Plaintiffs' action is primarily
based on the allegations that Christy Cole's children, Ana Lopez-Cole and K.C., were
forced to listen to daily, student-led prayer while attending elementary, middle and high
school in the District. As a result of the School Board's institution of its district-wide
prohibition, K.C. no longer faces the prospect of enduring daily prayer. The benefits and
protections of the School Board's revised policy therefore remove any need for injunctive
relief. Plaintiffs will remain free from the complained of conduct, even if an injunction is not
granted. Put simply, Plaintiff cannot show a substantial threat of irreparable harm should
they not obtain their requested injunction.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs cannot establish a showing of irreparable harm based on the
isolated incidents of past conduct alleged in their Motion. For instance, alleged isolated
incidents of speakers providing a religious message during a presentation over four years
ago or the isolated viewing of media with potentially religious messages is insufficient to
show a substantial likelihood of irreparable harm in the future. See, Lyons, 461 U.S. at 111
5

Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 10 Filed 01/10/18 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 180

(requiring past acts to establish "real and immediate threat").2 3
Similarly, Plaintiffs' alleged observance of payer at a highschool football game in
2014 and at graduation ceremonies in 2016 and 2017 are insufficient to establish a real
and immediate threat of harm. See,

Lyons, 461 U.S. at 111. For instance, the

commencement of the high school football season is over seven months away. Likewise,
at least four months remain until any commencement activities will be held. Even if
Plaintiffs could establish a threat of being exposed to prayer either at a football game or
at graduation (which is at all times denied), such a threat certainly lacks the immediacy
necessary to justify injunctive relief. Further, Plaintiffs have not (and cannot) allege any
specific instances of prayer during basketball, baseball or softball games that will continue
to take place before high school graduation and the commencement of the football
season.4 Without any showing of immediacy, Plaintiff's Motion should be denied.
2.

Plaintiffs Cannot Establish a Likelihood of Success on the Merits.

Apart from being moot or otherwise insufficient to establish an immediate risk of
harm, several of Plaintiffs' allegations fall well short of pleading an Establishment Clause

2

Any groups invited to speak to the District's students were requested to do so for secular
purposes. For instance, the Christian bodybuilders referred to by Plaintiffs were invited to speak to
students about the benefits of exercise, a healthy diet and abstaining from drugs and alcohol. Similarly, a
speaker from the group, "You Are Worth It," was selected to speak to high school students about the
dangers of drinking and driving. In neither instance did the Webster Parish School Board exercise any
control over the content of the speaker's message. Likewise, neither group has been asked to return to
speak to the District's students.
3

Any alleged use of the "Veggietales" program or the film "God's Not Dead" was for the secular
purpose of selecting age-appropriate, family-friendly entertainment as a supplement to the educational
cirriculum that did not contain any curse words, crude language, violence, nudity or other content
inappropriate for children, adolescent and teenage audiences.
4

Defendants adamantly deny Plaintiffs' unsupported claim that every athletic event held at schools
in Webster Parish includes prayers delivered by students and broadcast over the school's loudspeakers.

6

Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 10 Filed 01/10/18 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 181

violation. For instance, Plaintiffs are without a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits of their claims involving the student group, Fellowship of Christian Athletes ("FCA").
Members of the FCA clearly have the right to use the school premises at Lakeside
Junior/Senior High School, before or after instructional hours. See, e.g., Widmar v. Vincent,
454 U.S. 263, 102 S.Ct. 269, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981) (University that created a forum
generally open for use by student groups could not prohibit religious groups from similar
use of its buildings.); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S.
384, 113 S. Ct. 2141, 124 L. Ed. 2d 352 (1993) (School district could not prohibit
evangelical group from after hours use of building to show film series on family values
when after hours use of facilities was allowed for social, civic or recreational purposes);
Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 ,121 S.Ct. 2093, 150 L.Ed.2d 151
(2001), (School's exclusion of children's club from meeting at school after hours based
upon religious nature of club was unconstitutional in light of permitted use of school
facilities for activities that served a variety of purposes).
Similarly, the School Board's alleged announcement of the after-school Fields of
Faith event does not give rise to a violation of the Establishment Clause. The student-led
group responsible for organizing this event was entitled to access and use the same
means of communicating with the general student population as any other student group.
At Lakeside, it remains common for the school's principal to announce upcoming events
sponsored by student clubs or groups. As a result, the student group behind Fields of Faith
was entitled to have its program announced to the general student body. In so announcing
the student-led program, Defendants were not providing the students responsible for Fields
of Faith with any services not otherwise provided to any other student group. Defendants'
7

Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 10 Filed 01/10/18 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 182

provision of equal access for student groups simply does not provide any justification or
support for injunctive relief.
IV.CONCLUSION
This Court does not need to reach the merits of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Injunction. Much of the factual basis for Plaintiff's Motion no longer exists, rendering their
Motion moot. However, even if the Court reaches the merits of the Motion, it should be
denied, because Plaintiffs have failed to meet their heightened burden in seeking a
disfavored preliminary injunction.
Respectfully submitted,

HAMMONDS, SILLS, ADKINS & GUICE, L.L.P.
1881 Hudson Circle
Monroe, Louisiana 71201
(318) 324-0101 - Telephone
(318) 322-5375 - Facsimile

BY:

s/ Jon K. Guice
JON K. GUICE, #20841

BY:

s/Neal L. Johnson, Jr.
NEAL L. JOHNSON, JR., #23149

BY:

s/Courtney T. Joiner
COURTNEY T. JOINER, #32878

BY:

s/Justin N. Myers
JUSTIN N. MYERS, #34005

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS,
WEBSTER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
JOHNNY ROWLAND, AND DENNY FINLEY

8

Case 5:17-cv-01629-SMH-MLH Document 10 Filed 01/10/18 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 183

CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing Defendants' Original Answer
and Affirmative Defenses has this date been forwarded to all counsel for Plaintiff, by
depositing same in the United States mail with sufficient postage affixed thereto and
properly addressed to them as follows:
Mr. Bruce Hamilton
ACLU Foundation of Louisiana
P.O. Box 56157
New Orleans, LA 70156

Mr. Daniel Mach
Ms. Heather L. Weaver
American Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
915 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005

Monroe, Louisiana, this 10th day of January, 2018.

BY:

s/ Jon K. Guice
JON K. GUICE

BY:

s/Neal L. Johnson, Jr.
NEAL L. JOHNSON, JR.

BY:

s/Courtney T. Joiner
COURTNEY T. JOINER

BY:

s/Justin N. Myers
JUSTIN N. MYERS

9