Doe v. Ferguson, 128 F.4th 727

Plaintiffs (parents of two minor children) sued Prosper ISD officials Ferguson (Superintendent) and Hamrick (former Transportation Director) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly allowing a school bus driver, Frank Paniagua, to sexually abuse their children.
The abuse was captured on school bus surveillance video and partially reflected in GPS data, all within the possession of the district but with no direct evidence those officials watched or were notified of the footage prior to parental report.
Plaintiffs claimed that by virtue of the district's surveillance policies and possession of footage, both officials had actual, subjective knowledge of the abuse and failed to act.
The district court denied qualified immunity, holding the complaint plausibly alleged the officials had actual knowledge and were deliberately indifferent.
On interlocutory appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed only the supervisory liability § 1983 claims against Ferguson and Hamrick, not the underlying Title IX or state law claims, nor claims against the bus driver’s estate or district itself.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the complaint plausibly allege actual,	Ferguson/Hamrick had subjective	No factual basis they were notified of,	No plausible allegation; mere access to
subjective knowledge of abuse by the officials?	knowledge due to possession of	or reviewed, video evidence pre-discovery.	surveillance/video doesn't show subjective
	surveillance footage and GPS data.	Only direct notice or report would qualify.	knowledge; legal conclusion, not fact.
Are Ferguson and Hamrick liable under §1983 for	Their inaction constituted	They did not have actual knowledge,	Officials are entitled to qualified immunity
deliberate indifference to the students' rights?	deliberate indifference under	so cannot be deliberately indifferent.	because the first prong of Taylor not met.
	Taylor and related cases.
Is qualified immunity appropriate at motion	Not appropriate; complaint	Appropriate because no constitutional	Qualified immunity granted—no constitutional
to dismiss stage on these facts?	plausibly alleges rights violated.	right violation alleged.	violation alleged in operative complaint.
Does Ashcroft v. Iqbal bar supervisory liability	Taylor remains good law for	Iqbal eliminated traditional supervisory	Iqbal did not overrule Taylor; deliberate
claims under §1983?	deliberate indifference liability.	liability under §1983.	indifference standard survives in the 5th Cir.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (set pleading standards and clarified individual liability under Bivens/§ 1983; supervisors liable only for their own misconduct, not under respondeat superior)
Doe v. Taylor Indep. Sch. Dist., 15 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 1994) (established test for supervisory liability of school officials for sexual abuse under § 1983)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard requires actual, subjective knowledge of risk)
Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631 (5th Cir. 2013) (applied Taylor test; deliberate indifference requires actual knowledge of risk by the defendant)
Ferguson v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp., 802 F.3d 777 (5th Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing motions to dismiss—courts consider only complaint facts and incorporated documents)