Judge Dismisses Plainfield Central 'Code Blue' Hazing Lawsuit

PLAINFIELD, IL — About five months after the parents of two former Plainfield Central High School students filed a lawsuit claiming their sons were sexually assaulted by varsity football players, a judge dismissed the case in its entirety.

The civil rights suit, filed with the U.S. District Court in August and headed by Chicago-based law firm Romanucci & Blandin, claimed the two boys — at the time freshmen on the school's football team — were sodomized in their locker room as part of a hazing ritual known as "Code Blue."

Pinned to the ground by varsity football players, the boys were assaulted with a broomstick until it snapped in half, the lawsuit alleged. Attorneys said the hazing ritual was longstanding, widespread and well-known.

Identified in the lawsuit as Doe Child A and Doe Child B, the boys transferred schools, according to their attorneys.

RELATED: 'Widespread' Sexual Assault, Hazing Was Known To Coaches: Suit

Parents said three coaches — named in the suit as Michael Moderhack, Jon Pereiro and Vincent Vasquez — knew about the behavior and didn't stop it.

In his Jan. 19 opinion, Judge Charles P. Kocoras listed several reasons why he granted the motion to dismiss. District 202 argued the parents didn't sufficiently allege willful and wanton misconduct, and the judge said the parents failed to demonstrate the district caused their sons harm.

"The Court recognizes that the line between action and inaction is not always easily drawn; however, Plaintiffs' Complaint focuses on the Defendant Coaches' inaction (i.e., failed to observe and monitor the Doe Children and the locker room; failed to follow District policies)," the opinion reads. "Again, failing to prevent the harm is simply not the same as creating or increasing the risk of harm, which is a fundamental requirement for this type of substantive due process claim."

In the suit, parents said their children were deprived of the right to education and procedural due process rights, arguing that District 202 failed to discipline the hazing. The judge dismissed this and said the parents cited no case law to support their claim that "procedural due process affords Plaintiffs a right to have other students disciplined."

"Even assuming Plaintiffs adequately alleged the Doe Children’s due process rights were violated, they have not alleged that the state provides inadequate post-deprivation remedies," reads the opinion.

Kocoras ruled the parents, who sued on behalf of both themselves and their children, didn't provide facts to support claims of their own constitutional injuries. He also noted that the state court doesn't have jurisdiction over federal constitutional law.

Kocoras declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the matters that do fall under state law and dismissed the suit without prejudice, meaning the parents can file the case again.