Doe v. Brg City Indep Sch Dist
20-40596
| 5th Cir. | Oct 20, 2021Background
- Middle-school student "Son Doe" was allegedly assaulted in a Bridge City ISD locker room by another student.
- The Does sued Bridge City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging municipal liability for the third party's intentional torts.
- Bridge City moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the Does did not respond, and the district court dismissed and denied leave to amend as futile.
- Over a month later the Does filed a motion for reconsideration (claiming they intended to amend instead of responding); the district court treated it as Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) and denied relief.
- On appeal the Does challenged only the denial of leave to amend and raised a new constitutional argument not presented below; the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of leave for abuse of discretion and affirmed because amendment would be futile under controlling precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion | Plaintiffs argued they should be allowed to amend (they intended to file an amended complaint instead of responding) | Amendment would be futile because Fifth Circuit precedent forecloses a DeShaney-based duty by schools to protect students from private actors | Denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion because amendment would be futile |
| Whether this appeal should be treated as de novo review of the 12(b)(6) dismissal | Plaintiffs urged de novo review of dismissal | Bridge City argued Plaintiffs waived challenge by not briefing the dismissal on appeal | Court held Plaintiffs waived any challenge to the 12(b)(6) dismissal; reviewed only denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion |
| Whether a public school has a DeShaney "special relationship" creating an affirmative duty to protect students from private violence | Plaintiffs asked the court to recognize such a constitutional duty | Bridge City relied on controlling Fifth Circuit precedent rejecting a special relationship between schools and students | Court held Fifth Circuit precedent forecloses a DeShaney special-relationship claim by students against schools; no constitutional duty found |
Key Cases Cited
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (Due Process Clause does not generally impose a duty to protect from private actors)
- Doe ex rel. Magee v. Covington Cty. Sch. Dist. ex rel. Keys, 675 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (public schools do not have DeShaney special relationship with students)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given unless amendment would be futile)
- Walton v. Alexander, 44 F.3d 1297 (5th Cir. 1995) (no special-relationship duty where student assaulted by another student)
- Doe v. Columbia-Brazoria Indep. Sch. Dist., 855 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2017) (same)
- NCDR, L.L.C. v. Mauze & Bagby, P.L.L.C., 745 F.3d 742 (5th Cir. 2014) (appellate courts may decline to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal)