Doe v. Silsbee Independent School District
440 F. App'x 421
5th Cir.2011Background
- H.S., a high school cheerleader, alleged constitutional violations against SISD and officials after being removed from the cheerleading squad for protesting Bolton's conduct.
- Bolton and Rountree were alleged sexual assault suspects; orders were entered to remove them from classes and activities but they returned after a grand jury declined to indict.
- H.S. protested at a basketball game; school officials told her to cheer for Bolton or go home, leading to her removal from the squad.
- H.S.’s father appealed the removal; Bain later allowed her to try out for the next year, despite a policy restricting reinstatement after removal.
- The district court denied a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, allowed one amended complaint, and later dismissed the suit; a panel affirmed; during appeal, defendants sought § 1988 attorney’s fees, which were awarded, then appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly awarded § 1988 fees to defendants. | H.S. contends the fee award was improper given lack of frivolousness. | Defendants argue the Meyers factors show the action was frivolous and warranted fees. | District court abused discretion; fee award reversed and remanded. |
| Whether H.S.’s Equal Protection claim was frivolous. | H.S. alleged discriminatory gender-based action. | Defendants argue absence of discriminatory intent or purpose. | Frivolous; no discriminatory purpose shown. |
| Whether H.S.’s Due Process liberty claim was frivolous. | H.S. claimed liberty interests in freedom from psychological harm and stigmatization were violated. | Claim framed as psychological injury; not protected liberty interest. | Frivolous; no protected liberty interest shown. |
| Whether H.S.’s First Amendment claim was frivolous or arguable, affecting fee allocation. | H.S. asserted protected symbolic speech via protest; conduct may be protected. | Court previously deemed non-protected due to school-sponsored speech or disruption. | Not frivolous; district court erred by finding lack of arguable merit; remand to adjust fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C., 434 U.S. 412 (1978) (standard for frivolous fee shifting under § 1988)
- Fox v. Vice, 131 S. Ct. 2205 (U.S. 2011) (fees may be awarded for frivolous claims even with non-frivolous ones)
- Meyers v. City of West Monroe, 211 F.3d 289 (5th Cir. 2000) (three-factor test for frivolousness)
- Doe v. Silsbee Indep. Sch. Dist., 402 F. App’x 852 (5th Cir. 2010) (unpublished Fifth Circuit interpreting related due process claims)
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (student speech and school authority limits)