## Facts

- Amanda Bisignano, age 13, was an eighth-grade student in a middle-school gym class taught by physical education teacher Vincent Nicita.
- During class, Amanda found a $20 bill on the gym floor, asked nearby students if it was theirs, and kept it after no one claimed it.
- Nicita asserted the bill was his and, when Amanda did not surrender it, threatened to keep her in an equipment closet until she returned the money.
- Amanda testified Nicita pushed her into an equipment closet, shut the doors, held them closed from the outside, and confined her in the dark for slightly more than 30 seconds while demanding the money.
- Nicita testified Amanda ran into the closet herself, the lights were on, and he believed the bill was his because he had discovered a $20 bill missing from his pocket.
- After the closet incident, Amanda testified Nicita grabbed and twisted her left wrist to restrain her, leaving red marks.
- Plaintiffs asserted the school administration had received prior complaints about Nicita’s treatment of students but had only mildly reprimanded him.
- Amanda’s parents sued the school district and Nicita, asserting federal constitutional claims under § 1983 and parallel state-law tort claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the school district could be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on an official policy, custom, or deliberate indifference causing the alleged constitutional violations.
2. Whether Nicita’s conduct constituted an unreasonable seizure and/or excessive force under the Fourth Amendment in the school context.
3. Whether Nicita’s conduct violated substantive due process by conduct that “shocks the conscience.”
4. Whether a procedural due process claim could be based on the alleged deprivation of the $20 bill (and related liberty interests) given available state post-deprivation remedies.
5. Whether qualified immunity barred the remaining federal claims against Nicita at summary judgment.
6. Whether the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing federal claims against the district.

## Decision

- Granted the school district’s summary judgment motion on all § 1983 claims; the record did not establish a policy, custom, or deliberate indifference attributable to the district.
- Declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against the district and dismissed those claims without prejudice.
- Granted Nicita summary judgment on plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process claims.
- Denied Nicita summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment-based claims (unreasonable seizure/false imprisonment and excessive force) due to material factual disputes.
- Denied qualified immunity at the summary-judgment stage as to the surviving Fourth Amendment-based claims because objective reasonableness turned on disputed facts.
- Dismissed Nicita’s cross-claim against the district without prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality is not liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory; liability requires an official policy, custom, or deliberate indifference that caused the constitutional injury.
- Prior complaints and limited discipline, without proof of a policy/custom or a pattern supporting deliberate indifference, are insufficient to impose Monell liability at summary judgment.
- Substantive due process liability for school-official conduct requires behavior so brutal or egregious that it “shocks the conscience”; isolated, brief confinement and relatively minor injury may fall short even if tortious.
- A random and unauthorized deprivation of property by a state employee does not violate procedural due process when the state provides adequate post-deprivation remedies.
- Student restraint claims may be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment; summary judgment is improper where disputes exist over the nature, purpose, and proportionality of force and confinement.
- Qualified immunity cannot be resolved on summary judgment when disputed facts are material to whether a reasonable official would have understood the conduct to be unlawful.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the school district from the federal case for lack of evidence of a district policy, custom, or deliberate indifference, and it rejected the student’s due process theories against the teacher; however, it allowed the Fourth Amendment unreasonable-seizure and excessive-force claims (and related state tort claims) against the teacher to proceed because disputed facts prevented summary judgment and barred a qualified-immunity ruling at that stage.


Bisignano v. Harrison Cent. Sch. Dist., 113 F. Supp. 2d 591 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)