Doe v. Columbia-Brazoria Independent School District ex rel. Board of Trustees
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7902
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff John Doe, a former elementary student, alleges a male student sexually assaulted him in a school bathroom in 2002 while he was in 2nd–3rd grade; Doe never reported the assault to school staff at the time.
- Doe later disclosed the assault to his mother and sought counseling; he claims he had a disability that led to separate testing/study locations, increasing his vulnerability.
- Doe sued Columbia‑Brazoria ISD under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title IX, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the ADA; the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- Procedurally, the District filed a second Rule 12(b)(6) motion after an initial motion was denied; the district court allowed the second motion, granted it, and Doe’s post‑judgment motions were denied.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the procedural rulings for abuse of discretion and the 12(b)(6) dismissals de novo, ultimately affirming dismissal of all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by permitting a second Rule 12(b)(6) motion | Rule 12(g) bars successive Rule 12 motions | Rule 12(h)(2) permits challenge for failure to state a claim; any error harmless | No abuse — Rule 12(h)(2) allows second 12(b)(6) or, at minimum, harmless if treated as 12(c) motion |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying continuance or additional discovery | Sought records about perpetrator and school knowledge; claimed District withheld records | District said records did not exist; court warned plaintiff to respond and denied continuance | No abuse — plaintiff failed to show missing discovery existed or would change outcome |
| Whether § 1983 substantive‑due‑process/EP claim survives (state duty to protect) | District had duty to protect students; failures in monitoring/training/cameras created constitutional violation | No special relationship; claim rests on private actor conduct and DeShaney limits state duty; state‑created‑danger theory not meaningfully argued | Dismissed — no special relationship; state‑created‑danger argument forfeited and not adopted in Circuit |
| Whether Title IX, Section 504, and ADA claims survive | District had (actual or constructive) knowledge and was deliberately indifferent; harassment tied to sex/disability | Doe failed to plead actual knowledge or that harassment was sex‑ or disability‑based or that he was denied educational benefits | Dismissed — failed to plead actual knowledge (Title IX) and failed to plead elements for disability‑based harassment or intentional discrimination (Section 504/ADA) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standard for facial plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Doe ex rel. Magee v. Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist. ex rel. Keys, 675 F.3d 849 (public school lacks special‑relationship duty to protect student from private actors)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (Due Process Clause does not generally impose affirmative duty to protect from private violence)
- Sanches v. Carrollton‑Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 647 F.3d 156 (elements for school liability under Title IX for student‑on‑student harassment)
- Nationwide Bi‑Weekly Admin., Inc. v. Belo Corp., 512 F.3d 137 (Rule 12(g)/(h) consolidation/exception discussion)