CHARITY HALASZ and THOMAS HALASZ, on behalf of their child, H.H., a minor v. CASS CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, in its official capacity; WILLIAM HARTZELL, ALLISON ZIMBA, DONALD MARKEL, and STACEY BLISS, in their official and individual capacities - Articles

All Content

CHARITY HALASZ and THOMAS HALASZ, on behalf of their child, H.H., a minor v. CASS CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, in its official capacity; WILLIAM HARTZELL, ALLISON ZIMBA, DONALD MARKEL, and STACEY BLISS, in their official and individual capacities

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Dec 18, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Keith Altman, THE LAW OFFICE OF KEITH A. ALTMAN, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Kailen C. Piper, O’NEILL, WALLACE & DOYLE P.C., Saginaw, Michigan, for Appellees.

Judge(s): SILER, KETHLEDGE, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. About a week after a student opened fire at a high school in Oakland County, Michigan, eighth-grade student H.H. allegedly made comments during class at another Michigan school about either having a gun or bringing a gun to school. School and law- enforcement officials questioned H.H. about his comments in the school’s office and searched H.H., his backpack, and his locker. They found nothing. But the school district expelled him for making a threat of violence. H.H.’s parents, Charity Halasz and Thomas Halasz, sued the school district and several of its officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They contend that school officials unlawfully seized H.H. when they questioned him and unlawfully searched him for a firearm. They also contend that the expulsion hearing violated H.H.’s due-process rights. And they bring tort claims against the defendants. Because the Halaszes cannot show that the defendants violated his constitutional rights and because the defendants are immune from liability for the tort claims, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants.

Attachments: