JEFFREY FRANZ, et al. (23-1483/1563); STEVE ST. JULIANA, et al. (23-1487/1561); WILLIAM MYRE, et al. (23-1489/1565); KYLIE OSSEGE (23-1491/1564); MATTHEW MUELLER, et al. (23-1493/1560), NICHOLETTE ASCIUTTO, et al. (23-1484); NICOLE BEAUSOLEIL (23-1490); SANDRA A. CUNNINGHAM, et al. (23-1492); JARROD WATSON, et al. (23-1496) v. OXFORD COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., NICHOLAS EJAK; SHAWN HOPKINS - Articles

All Content

JEFFREY FRANZ, et al. (23-1483/1563); STEVE ST. JULIANA, et al. (23-1487/1561); WILLIAM MYRE, et al. (23-1489/1565); KYLIE OSSEGE (23-1491/1564); MATTHEW MUELLER, et al. (23-1493/1560), NICHOLETTE ASCIUTTO, et al. (23-1484); NICOLE BEAUSOLEIL (23-1490); SANDRA A. CUNNINGHAM, et al. (23-1492); JARROD WATSON, et al. (23-1496) v. OXFORD COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., NICHOLAS EJAK; SHAWN HOPKINS

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Mar 20, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Kenneth B. Chapie, GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, P.C., Troy, Michigan, for Nicholas Ejak and Shawn Hopkins. Kevin M. Carlson, PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER, BONANNI & RIVERS PC, Royal Oak, Michigan, for all Plaintiffs.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Kenneth B. Chapie, Timothy J. Mullins, Annabel F. Shea, GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, P.C., Troy, Michigan, for Nicholas Ejak and Shawn Hopkins.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Kevin M. Carlson, Michael L. Pitt, Beth M. Rivers, Danielle Y. Canepa, PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER, BONANNI & RIVERS PC, Royal Oak, Michigan, for Steve St. Juliana, et al.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Robert G. Kamenec, FIEGER, FIEGER, KENNEY & HARRIGTON, P.C., Southfield, Michigan, for Jeffrey Franz, et al. Andrew J. Laurila, Matthew Klakulak, GIROUX PAPPAS TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.C., Southfield, Michigan, for Nicholette Asciutto, et al.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Christopher Desmond, Ven Johnson, JOHNSON LAW, PLC, for William Myre, et al.

Attorneys 6: ON BRIEF: Wolfgang Mueller, MUELLER LAW FIRM, Novi, Michigan, for Nicole Beausoleil and Sandra A. Cunningham. Deborah L.Gordon, Elizabeth A. Marzotto Taylor, Sarah Gordon.

Attorneys 7: ON BRIEF: Thomas, DEBORAH GORDON LAW, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Kylie Ossege. Matthew L. Turner, Lisa M. Esser, John M. Malone, SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C., Southfield, Michigan, for Matthew Mueller, et al. Mark Granzotto, MARK GRANZOTTO, P.C., Berkley, Michigan, Todd F. Flood, FLOOD LAW PLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Jarrod Watson, et al.

Judge(s): KETHLEDGE, LARSEN, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. On November 30, 2021, in Oxford, Michigan, a 15-year- old student took a gun to school and used it to shoot ten students and one teacher. Four students died. The shooter, whom we call E.C., pled guilty to first-degree murder and is now serving a life sentence. His parents are likewise in prison after juries convicted them of manslaughter. Meanwhile, victims of the shooting have brought multiple suits in state court, seeking recovery against school and law-enforcement officials on various theories of tort liability. Many of those suits remain pending. The consolidated cases here are different. What the plaintiffs assert here “is not a negligence claim, but one sounding in a rare species of one of the narrowest doctrines of constitutional law.” Doe v. Jackson Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 954 F.3d 925, 937 (6th Cir. 2020). For the most part the Constitution sets forth rules for government, both creating (or “constituting”) its powers and limiting them. The limitation the plaintiffs invoke here is that of “due process.” And to proceed with those claims, the plaintiffs must allege more than that the school officials in these cases—a counselor and the dean of students—made bad decisions or could have done more to prevent this tragedy. What the plaintiffs must show in these cases, rather, is that the actions of these two defendants were so outrageous, and so callous in their disregard of the danger posed by E.C., as to shock the conscience. The district court held that, with one exception, the plaintiffs had not alleged facts supporting any inference to that effect. We reach that same conclusion across the board—and thus we affirm in part and reverse in part.

Attachments: