Scarborough v. Frederick Cnty. Sch. Bd. 1 Scarborough attached multiple exhibits to her opposition. (See ECF No. 40.) The court did not consider the exhibits as it declines to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) ; Zak v. Chelsea Therapeutics Int'l., Ltd. , 780 F.3d 597, 606 (4th Cir. 2015) ("Generally, when a defendant moves to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), courts are limited to considering the sufficiency of allegations set forth in the complaint and the documents attached or incorporated into the complaint." (internal quotation marks omitted)). BACKGROUND Scarborough initially filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking monetary damages and an injunction against FCPS and "Does 1-10." (ECF No. 1.) FCPS filed a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b) (3) and 12(b)(6) for improper venue and for failure to state a claim. (ECF Nos. 4–5.) Before the parties completed briefing on the motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge John A. Gibney entered an order finding that venue was proper in the Western District of Virginia. (ECF No. 7.) Judge Gibney denied FCPS's motion to dismiss and transferred the matter to the Western District of Virginia under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). (Id. ) Because Judge Gibney's order did not rule on any substantive matters apart from venue, this court entered an order stating that it "considers the remaining matters in the motion to dismiss as still pending," and set a hearing date for the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 11.) Prior to the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Scarborough sought leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.) The court granted Scarborough leave to file an amended complaint over FCPS's objection and denied FCPS's motion to dismiss as moot. (ECF Nos. 15–17, 21.) In addition to FCPS and "Does 1–10," the Amended Complaint named Edwards, the head of 517 F. Supp. 3d 569 (W.D. Va. 2021) 574 communications for FCPS, as a defendant. *574 (See Am. Compl. [ECF No. 16] ¶ 4.) On November 9, 2020, FCPS and Edwards filed a motion to dismiss Scarborough's Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 22–23.) The court held a hearing on the motion on December 7, 2020. (ECF No. 32.) At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, and later issued an order to that effect. (See ECF Nos. 32, 33.) First, the court dismissed FCPS as a defendant with prejudice, because, under Virginia law, a plaintiff must sue a school board, not the school itself. (See id. ) Second, the court dismissed Does 1–10 without prejudice because the Amended Complaint did not state a claim against them. (See id. ) Third, because the court dismissed FCPS with prejudice and Scarborough failed to specify whether she was suing Edwards in his official or personal capacity—leaving the court unable to appropriately analyze the substantive claims—the court dismissed Counts I and II for failure to state a claim. (Id. ) Finally, the court denied the rest of Defendants' motion insofar as it argued that Scarborough had failed to allege claims for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments or to properly request injunctive relief. (Id. ) The court gave Scarborough until January 21, 2021, to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Id. ) On December 28, 2020, Scarborough filed her Second Amended Complaint. (See 2d Am. Compl. [ECF No. 36].) Scarborough now names four defendants: FCSB, Edwards, Sovine, and Angelo. She brings three causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 : (1) a claim against all four defendants for "nominal damages" and injunctive relief based on alleged First Amendment and equal protection violations; (2) a claim against all four defendants for alleged violations of her procedural due process rights; and (3) a claim against FCSB for failing to train its employees "to not block 2