## Facts

- Daniel Brown, a six-year-old first-grade student in a special-education classroom, attended Aberdeen Elementary School from September 1995 to mid-March 1996.
- Daniel had been diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome and also suffered from restrictive airways disease and asthma; his schooling was governed in part by an Individualized Education Program (IEP).
- Natalie Ramsey (teacher) and Ruby Hart (assistant) were trained to use a physical restraint technique known as a “basket hold,” described as holding the student’s wrists and crossing the student’s hands in front of the chest.
- Daniel alleged Ramsey and Hart repeatedly used the basket hold for misbehavior or “time-out,” sometimes pushed his head down, and held him until he stopped crying.
- Daniel claimed the restraint caused pain and a choking sensation and later psychological injury, including post-traumatic stress symptoms; he did not seek medical treatment for physical injuries allegedly caused by the restraint.
- Ramsey and Hart denied punitive use and asserted the hold was used only a few times and only when Daniel posed a danger to himself or others.

## Issues

1. Whether the teachers’ repeated use of a trained physical restraint on a special-education student, allegedly causing pain and emotional distress without significant physical injury, violated substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether the alleged conduct met the “shocks the conscience” threshold required for a substantive due process claim based on physical force in a school setting.
3. Whether the teachers were entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim.
4. Whether related state-law tort claims could survive summary judgment on the record presented.

## Decision

- The court granted Ramsey and Hart’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held the restraint, on the evidence presented, did not constitute conscience-shocking conduct and therefore did not violate substantive due process.
- The court alternatively held Ramsey and Hart were entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged right was not clearly established under then-existing law.
- The court disposed of the pendent state-law claims in defendants’ favor.

## Legal Principles

- Substantive due process bars school officials’ use of force only when it is arbitrary in the constitutional sense and sufficiently extreme to “shock the conscience.”
- In school force/restraint cases, a constitutional violation generally requires exceptionally severe, abusive, or clearly punitive conduct, often accompanied by serious physical injury or objective indicia of brutality.
- Emotional or psychological distress, standing alone and without severe physical injury or egregious abuse, is generally insufficient to satisfy the conscience-shocking standard.
- Qualified immunity protects public employees performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates clearly established law such that a reasonable official would understand the conduct to be unconstitutional.
- When federal claims are resolved on summary judgment, related state-law claims may also be resolved against the plaintiff where the record does not support unlawful or unreasonable force and applicable immunity doctrines apply.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the teachers’ limited use of a trained restraint technique in a special-education setting, without evidence of serious physical injury or extreme, punitive abuse, did not meet the demanding substantive due process standard; in any event, qualified immunity barred the § 1983 claim, and summary judgment was entered for the defendants on federal and state claims.


Brown ex rel. Brown v. Ramsey, 121 F. Supp. 2d 911 (E.D. Va. 2000)