Estate of Lance v. Lewisville Independent School District
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3863
5th Cir.2014Background
- Montana Lance, a special-education student identified as emotionally disturbed, received an IEP and BIP from Lewisville ISD; his parents (the Lances) consented to and participated in ARD meetings and services throughout elementary school.
- Montana experienced peer altercations in 2009–2010, including a November shove and a December incident in which he produced a pocketknife; the district investigated and disciplined involved students and placed Montana briefly in DAEP.
- While returning from an office meeting on January 21, 2010, Montana locked himself in the nurse’s bathroom and committed suicide by hanging; school staff had previously assessed his suicidal statements as low lethality.
- The Lances sued the School District under § 504 (Rehabilitation Act) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (due process), alleging failure to provide FAPE under § 504, deliberate indifference to disability‑based harassment, and constitutional liability for student-on-student violence and Montana’s suicide.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the School District; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding no genuine fact issue that would sustain § 504 discrimination or § 1983 claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 504 FAPE requirement was violated despite an implemented IEP | Lances: § 504 FAPE can be violated even if IDEA IEP exists; district’s services were grossly deficient | School: Implemented IEP under IDEA satisfied § 504 FAPE (34 C.F.R. § 104.33(b)(2)); parents consented and records show meaningful educational benefit | Held: No § 504 FAPE violation—district implemented a valid IEP and provided meaningful educational access |
| Whether school was deliberately indifferent to disability‑based peer harassment under § 504 (Davis standard) | Lances: school ignored ongoing bullying, creating abusive educational environment that denied Montana benefits | School: investigated incidents, disciplined students, took affirmative steps (monitoring, seating, counseling, training) — response not clearly unreasonable | Held: No deliberate indifference as matter of law; district’s responses were not clearly unreasonable, so § 504 harassment claim fails |
| Whether § 1983 special‑relationship or caused‑to‑be‑subjected theories support due‑process liability for student‑on‑student harm | Lances: affirmative acts/omissions created or caused Montana’s vulnerability, giving rise to constitutional duty | School: under Covington (en banc), public school does not owe DeShaney special‑relationship duty to protect from private violence; no special relationship here | Held: Special‑relationship theory fails; no constitutional duty established, so § 1983 claims fail |
| Whether state‑created danger theory (assuming viable) supports § 1983 liability for bullying or suicide | Lances: school’s actions/inaction created a dangerous environment and showed deliberate indifference | School: record shows no affirmative act creating opportunity for harm, no knowledge of imminent danger regarding suicide, and interventions attempted | Held: Even assuming the doctrine, evidence insufficient on elements (no created opportunity, no known imminent danger, no deliberate indifference) — § 1983 claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272 (5th Cir. 2005) (describing IDEA framework and relationship to § 504)
- Cypress‑Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 1997) (IEP and FAPE standards under IDEA)
- White ex rel. White v. Ascension Parish Sch. Bd., 343 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2003) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit)
- Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (baseline for IDEA FAPE standard)
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (deliberate‑indifference standard for peer harassment claims)
- Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 220 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2000) (school response to harassment evaluated for clear unreasonableness)
- Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist. ex rel. Keys v. Doe, 675 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (limits on due‑process special‑relationship and discussion of state‑created danger)
- Sanches v. Carrollton‑Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 647 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. 2011) (school responses may be ineffective yet not clearly unreasonable)