An attorney representing the Altoona Area School District has been granted one more chance to convince a federal judge to dismiss an anti-bullying lawsuit filed by the father of a junior high school student who took his own life nearly 17 months ago.

Marc Lansberry, the father of Wyatt Lansberry, contends the 12-year-old student took his life on May 18, 2017, after suffering “intense, persistent and malicious bullying” while at school.

Since the lawsuit was filed last January in the U.S. District Court in Johnstown by Altoona attorneys Steven P. Passarello and Daniel Kiss, the fate of the case has been uncertain.

U.S. District Judge Kim R. Gibson initially dismissed parts of the lawsuit but gave the Lansberry attorneys permission to amend their civil complaint, which was done in August.

The amended lawsuit claimed the district failed to enforce its anti-bullying policies and cited multiple cases of bullying that occurred in and out of school and involved not only Wyatt but other students.

It claimed the school district knew about — but was “deliberately indifferent” to — the bullying.

The district answered, claiming the incidents cited by the attorneys were unrelated and did not show a pattern of indifference or a lack of training of district staff that would be raise a constitutional question.

Passarello and Kiss filed a retort, and now, after receiving permission from the judge, the district is arguing once again for dismissal.

Gibson on Friday afternoon received a seven-page response from the district, attacking the lawsuit by claiming cases cited by the Lansberry attorneys had no relevance to the present case.

For instance, the response outlined the case of an inmate who suffered a stroke after being deprived of his insulin. He was able to sue by citing a deprivation of a constitutional right — inadequate medical care — in his lawsuit.

A resident of a nursing home who suffered from inadequate care was able to sue because of a violation of the federal Nursing Home Reform Act, the district response outlined.

A suspect who was the subject of “excessive force” by the Philadelphia Police Department was able to succeed on a failure-to-train claim against the city.

A student in Bradford was able to sue because of a sexual assault by a teacher, which resulted in injuries inflicted by a “government employee.”

Unlike these lawsuits, the district contends the Lansberry lawsuit cannot rest on a constitutional violation because the “unrelated and dissimilar incidents” of bullying do not establish either deliberate indifference or a failure to train argument.

The district also claimed in its response that Passarello and Kiss made a “creative,” but invalid argument that the lack of required red boxes in the school district where students can file complaints, and the dearth of surveillance cameras, fell under a “real property exception” to the immunity from civil lawsuits granted to school districts.

The lack of boxes and cameras, according to legal precedent, could not have caused injury to Wyatt, the district claimed and asked the judge to dismiss that claim also.