Waronker v. Hempstead Union Free School Dist.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDERINTRODUCTION Plaintiff Dr. Shimon Waronker (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against Defendants Hempstead Union Free School District (“School District”), the Board Of Education of the Hempstead School District (“Board”), David B. Gates (“Gates”), in his individual and official capacity, Randy Stith, in his individual and official capacity, Lamont E. Jackson (“Jackson”), in his individual and official capacity, and Patricia Wright, in her official capacity as Clerk of the Hempstead School District (collectively, “Defendants”) for violations of his rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and state whistleblower protections, as well as breach of contract.Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to dismiss is granted as to all claims. Additionally, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s request to supplement his previously filed opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and to amend the Complaint. As explained below, Plaintiff’s request is denied.BACKGROUNDThe following relevant facts come from the Amended Complaint and are assumed true for purposes of this motion.The School District has had a fraught history of violence, gang activity, low graduation rates, inadequate resources, and dilapidated facilities. (Compl. [DE 1] 32.) Plaintiff has successfully “transformed” schools with academic, funding, and leadership challenges in the South Bronx, Brownsville, and East Flatbush. (Id. 14.) When the School District posted an opening for a new superintendent in 2017, Plaintiff submitted an application. (Id. 15.) Plaintiff was scheduled for an in-person interview with the Board on April 4, 2017. (Id. 16.) Upon his arrival for the interview he was informed that a minority of the Board had put in a restraining order against the majority of the Board because of the location of the interview. (Id.) Thereafter, Plaintiff had two interviews with all five members of the Board. (Id.