ST. CROIX — A federal judge has narrowed a civil lawsuit accusing Virgin Islands education officials of failing to stop years of sexual abuse by a school employee, allowing key claims to proceed while dismissing others and giving the plaintiff a chance to revise his case.
A former student’s first amended complaint filed last April in District Court, Division of St. Thomas/St. John against education officials and government agencies lays out dozens of claims under both federal and territorial law tied to what he describes as repeated sexual assaults by a school coach and a systemic failure to stop them.
On Thursday, Chief Judge Robert Molloy ruled on multiple motions to dismiss in Doe v. Virgin Islands Department of Education et al., a lawsuit brought by a former student proceeding under the pseudonym “John Doe.”
The lawsuit centers on claims that former Charlotte Amalie High School coach Alfredo Bruce Smith sexually abused male students over a period of years and that school officials and government agencies failed to act despite warning signs and complaints.
According to the complaint, Smith — who worked as a hall monitor and track coach — used his position within CAHS to groom and exploit students, including the plaintiff, beginning when the student was a minor.
At the core of the lawsuit are multiple claims under Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded education programs.
The plaintiff alleges that the government of the Virgin Islands, the Virgin Islands Department of Education, the Virgin Islands Board of Education, and the Virgin Islands Department of Human Services all received federal funding and had authority to act on complaints of abuse — but failed to do so.
The Title IX claims allege GVI and VIDE failed to respond appropriately to known risks of sexual misconduct. The plaintiff alleges that officials with authority to act were deliberately indifferent, allowing a hostile educational environment to persist.
The complaint alleges that school administrators — including former principals Alcede Edwards and April Petrus, as well as teacher Camelia Febres — had prior knowledge of Smith’s conduct but failed to intervene, report, or implement safeguards.
The court ruled on motions to dismiss submitted by Edwards, the government of the Virgin Islands, the Department of Education, the Department of Human Services, and the Board of Education.
All claims against the Board of Education were dismissed without prejudice, with the court finding that the allegations were too conclusory to meet federal pleading standards.
The court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss submitted by Edwards, GVI, VIDE, and DHS.
The court allowed several claims against Edwards tied to supervisory liability to proceed. The judge relied on established precedent holding that school officials may be personally liable if they were aware of a pattern of abuse and acted with deliberate indifference.
At the same time, the court dismissed other claims against Edwards without prejudice, finding that the complaint did not sufficiently allege facts establishing his supervisory role during certain periods.
A civil conspiracy claim against all defendants was also dismissed without prejudice. The court found that the complaint did not adequately allege an agreement or coordinated action among defendants to violate the plaintiff’s rights but allowed the plaintiff to attempt to replead the claim with more specific facts.
Despite the dismissals, the court granted the plaintiff’s motions to amend his complaint. He has until April 17 to file a revised version addressing the deficiencies identified in the ruling, without adding new claims. Defendants must respond by May 1.
The court also reaffirmed its earlier decision allowing the plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym, rejecting arguments that the case should be dismissed for failing to identify him by name.
The case will now move forward with a narrower set of claims, focusing on whether school officials and others can be held accountable for what the plaintiff describes as years of unchecked abuse within the public school system.
The complaint outlines four separate Title IX counts tied to specific alleged assaults in 2019, including incidents on campus, in a school vehicle, and during a track trip to Puerto Rico. One incident describes the plaintiff escaping and hiding in a school van after Smith allegedly tried to force him into his home. Another alleges that Smith assaulted the student in a dorm room during the Puerto Rico trip after requiring him to stay there despite objections from his mother.
Smith, who admitted to sexually abusing 12 boys throughout the 15 years he worked at CAHS, pleaded guilty in federal court to all 20 counts charged against him, including rape and production of child pornography for recording and taking photographs of the sexual acts. He was sentenced in 2024 to 35 years in prison, a conviction that underpins the civil claims.
The 53-page first amended complaint also describes broader patterns of alleged misconduct, asserting that Smith, a named defendant, targeted male student-athletes, cultivated trust through athletics, and used school resources — including transportation — to facilitate abuse.
The lawsuit, filed by New York-based attorney Daniel Cevallos, also accuses the defendants of failing to properly train staff to recognize and respond to abuse, citing findings from an internal assessment known as the Praed Report.
According to the complaint, officials were aware of prior allegations against Smith dating back years but failed to implement adequate safeguards, training, or reporting systems — creating what the plaintiff describes as a predictable risk of abuse.
The plaintiff further alleges retaliation, claiming that he and other students who reported misconduct faced adverse actions from school officials after coming forward.
Beyond Title IX, the lawsuit included multiple claims under the U.S. Code, Title 42, Section 1983, alleging violations of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. These claims, which asserted that the defendants, acting under color of law, deprived the student of his Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity by allowing the abuse to occur, were dismissed.
In addition, the plaintiff brings a series of territorial tort claims, including negligence, assault and battery, and intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress.
