CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JENNIFER GARZA, individually and as guardian ad litem for C.G. on behalf of C.G.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT; CONNIE NICKSON; TRACEY KEATON; MARTIN ALWARDT; YVONNE CAAMAL CANUL; SHERYL BACON; EDNA ROBINSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 19-1645
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:15-cv-01128—Gordon J. Quist, District Judge.
Argued: March 13, 2020
Decided and Filed: August 28, 2020
Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Jennifer Garza, acting individually and on behalf of her child, C.G., appeals the district court’s judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Defendants Lansing School District (the “District”) and its current or former employees Sheryl Bacon, Edna Robinson, Martin Alwardt, Yvonne Caamal Canul, and Connie Nickson. This case arises out of former teacher Lester Duvall’s physical abuse of C.G. Plaintiff alleges that the individual Defendants bear supervisory liability for Duvall’s abuse because they were deliberately indifferent to the possibility that Duvall, who had a long history of abusing students, would also abuse C.G. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Bacon and Robinson, granted summary judgment to Defendants Alwardt, Caamal Canul, and Nickson, and denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to add an additional claim against the District. Plaintiff appeals each of these decisions.

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Bacon and Robinson and its grant of summary judgment to Defendants Alwardt, Caamal Canul, and Nickson, AFFIRM its denial of Plaintiff’s motion to amend her pleadings, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
GARY WEST; MARY WEST,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
KENTUCKY HORSE RACING COMMISSION, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 19-6333
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 5:19-cv-00211—Karen K. Caldwell, District Judge.
Argued: June 16, 2020
Decided and Filed: August 28, 2020
Before: BATCHELDER, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. “Whether true or perceived to be true, a referee’s calls can ‘change the outcome of [a] game.’” Higgins v. Ky. Sports Radio, LLC, 951 F.3d 728, 735 (6th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). As is true for Kentucky basketball, the same is true for Kentucky horse racing. At issue here is a call made by racing stewards that changed the outcome in the most storied race of them all—the Kentucky Derby.

In 144 uninterrupted years of Runs for the Roses, only one horse to cross the finish line first had been disqualified, and no winning horse had ever been disqualified for misconduct during the race itself. But, on the first Saturday in May 2019, fans were told to hold onto their tickets at the conclusion of the 145th Derby. “Maximum Security,” the horse that had finished first, would not be declared the winner. Instead, he would come in last, thanks to the stewards’ call that Maximum Security committed fouls by impeding the progress of other horses in the race.

As a result of this ruling, Maximum Security’s owners, Gary and Mary West, were not awarded the Derby Trophy, an approximate $1.5 million purse, and potentially even far greater financial benefits from owning a stallion that won the Derby. So, the Wests filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the individual stewards who made the controversial call, the individual members of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, and the Commission itself. The complaint alleged that the stewards’ decision was arbitrary and capricious, was not supported by substantial evidence, and violated the Wests’ right to procedural due process. The Wests also claimed that the regulation that gave the stewards authority to disqualify Maximum Security is unconstitutionally vague. They sought, among other things, a declaration from the district court that Maximum Security was the official winner of the 145th Kentucky Derby.

The district court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. It determined that the stewards’ decision was not reviewable under Kentucky law, that the Wests had no property interest in the prize winnings, and that the challenged regulation is not unconstitutionally vague. For the reasons discussed below, we agree and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.