Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin’s Latest Lawsuit

The quotes below are from Kimberlin v. Metropolitan School Dist., decided Friday by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt (S.D. Ind.); you can see some of Kimberlin’s past filings here, my posts on some of his past lawsuits here and here, and more on his past criminal convictions here. First, the plaintiff’s allegations (of course at this point they are just allegations):

In 1968, when he was a fourteen-year-old student at Westlane Junior High School, teacher Tharrell Davis (“Davis”) “took an unusual interest” in Kimberlin. Over the next several months, Davis repeatedly sexually assaulted Kimberlin in Davis’s home and elsewhere. The abuse caused Kimberlin physical injuries at the time and has caused many other problems in the decades since.

Another boy named “Tommy” was often present during the assaults and was also assaulted by Davis. Kimberlin offered to have his parents help Tommy get away from Davis. Tommy told Davis about this offer, which led Davis to admit the abuse to Kimberlin’s mother and agree not to have further contact with Kimberlin. Kimberlin’s mother asked a friend to report Davis to the School District and Indiana State Police; the Complaint does not allege whether those reports were made. The next year, Davis left the School District. “Plaintiff believes that he was quietly forced out of his job because of his sexual abuse of Plaintiff and others.”

In December 2023, shortly before her death, Kimberlin’s mother told him that Davis had admitted to the sexual assaults. This caused “a flood of repressed memories, nightmares, anxiety, and post traumatic stresses.” In June 2024, Kimberlin wrote a letter to [then-Superintendent Nikki Woodson] about the abuse, “demand[ing] accountability and compensation.” At the time, Kimberlin did not know Davis’s first name, but he told Dr. Woodson that Davis was a science teacher in 1968 at Westlane and had been in the military. Kimberlin “urged [Dr. Woodson] and [the School District] to review its records and conduct their own investigation.”

A few weeks later, in July 2024, outside counsel for the School District (and defense counsel in this case), Jonathan Mayes (“Mayes”), responded, stating that the School District “had turned the matter over to law enforcement for investigation, and [the School District] would respond after law enforcement responded. Law enforcement never responded to the School District, so the School District never responded to Kimberlin.

In January 2025, Kimberlin sent another letter to Mayes “stating that there was no reason to wait for any investigation by law enforcement” and reiterating his request for an investigation by the School District. In February 2025, Mayes sent a respond letter. It was curt, insensitive, and dismissive. It avoided confirming or denying that Davis was employed by the School District and stated that the School District would not investigate Kimberlin’s reports of abuse. Kimberlin’s reply stated, among other things, that Mayes was engaging in “a coverup” of Davis’s misconduct. Kimberlin then found his Westlane yearbooks, which contained Davis’s photo and full name and confirmed that Davis was a teacher at Westlane in 1968. Kimberlin sent a photo of the relevant yearbook pages, along with another letter, to Mayes.

Kimberlin sued, alleging violations of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming defendants violated his rights “by failing to investigate his 2024 and 2025 reports of sexual assault.” The court dismissed Kimberlin’s Title IX claims:

Title IX provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” … [W]hen Kimberlin made [his 2024 and 2025] reports and requested those investigations, he was not participating in or attempting to participate in any School programs. The School District’s actions or inactions therefore could not have interfered with Kimberlin’s participation in those programs.

In his response, Kimberlin focuses on the fact that he was participating in School programs at the time of the assault, and argues that the statute of limitations does not bar his Title IX claims. Kimberlin relies on Snyder-Hill v. Ohio State University (6th Cir. 2022), in which the Sixth Circuit held that former students’ Title IX claims were not time-barred despite being brought several years after their sexual abuse by university medical staff under the guise of performing medical examinations. Snyder-Hill is not applicable here.

In Snyder-Hill, the plaintiffs sued their alma mater for failing to prevent ongoing abuse by staff, despite having knowledge of the abuse at the time it was happening. The Sixth Circuit explained that even though the abuse happened years before the lawsuit, the plaintiffs did not know that the staff member’s conduct was abuse or that the university had knowledge of the abuse until the abuse allegations were made public many years later. The court therefore applied the “discovery rule” in finding that plaintiffs’ Title IX claims did not accrue until the plaintiffs first learned about the university’s knowledge and failure to act on that knowledge.

In contrast, Kimberlin does not allege that the School District knew about or failed to investigate Davis’s abuse while Kimberlin was a student. Instead, Kimberlin expressly claims that the School District violated Title IX by failing to investigate in 2024 and 2025, when Kimberlin was no longer a student….

And it dismissed his Fourteenth Amendment claims:

Defendants argue these claims must be dismissed against the School District and School Board for several reasons, including that Kimberlin has no cognizable constitutional right to an investigation into Davis’s prior conduct. The Court again agrees with Defendants…. Cf. Bolden v. City of Chi. (N.D. Ill. 2017) (dismissing due process claim based on police officers’ failure to investigate plaintiff’s alibi; “[T]he Seventh Circuit … has not held that a failure [by police] to investigate, in and of itself, constitutes a due process violation.”); McCray v. Alejandro R. (S.D. Ind. 2021) (“As we previously explained, the Defendants’ inaction, that is, their failure to investigate, is not enough to establish their liability for any constitutional violations.”)….

Woodson, as I understand it, made a limited appearance to dismiss on grounds of inadequate service, and hasn’t yet moved to dismiss on substantive grounds. The court rejected her motion, but I expect she will then move to dismiss for the same reasons as given by the School District and School Board, and will likewise prevail.

Jonathan Lamont Mayes (Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP) represents defendants.