King-White v. Humble Independent School District
803 F.3d 754
5th Cir.2015Background
- A.W. (a student) allegedly was sexually abused by her teacher Amanda Feenstra from 2009–2011; Feenstra pled guilty in October 2013 to improper relationship with a student.
- Plaintiffs (A.W. and her mother Mary King-White) sued Feenstra, Humble ISD (HISD), and several HISD officials under Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging school officials knew of and failed to stop the abuse.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the federal claims were time-barred; the district court dismissed the Title IX and § 1983 claims as untimely.
- Plaintiffs argued the Texas five-year statute for sexual assault (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.0045) should apply instead of the two-year general personal-injury period (§ 16.003), and alternatively that accrual was later or tolling applied.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed: it held Title IX borrows the same limitations rule as § 1983, the Texas two-year general personal-injury period governs, accrual occurred by spring 2011 when A.W. turned 18, and equitable tolling doctrines did not save the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which Texas limitations period applies to Title IX and § 1983 claims? | Apply §16.0045 (longer sexual-assault period). | Apply Texas general personal-injury period (§16.003). | General/residual personal-injury period (§16.003 two years) governs; §16.0045 exception is not used for federal borrowing. |
| Whether Title IX is treated like §1983 for limitations | Title IX may differ; longer period should apply. | Title IX should borrow the same limitations rule as §1983. | Title IX is treated like §1983 for limitations purposes. |
| When did the federal claims accrue? | Accrual occurred later—when plaintiffs learned facts about HISD’s policies/ratification (during criminal case). | Claims accrued when plaintiffs had awareness of injury and link to defendants (by A.W.’s majority in 2011). | Claims accrued by spring 2011 (A.W.’s 18th birthday); plaintiffs had facts sufficient to investigate earlier. |
| Do equitable tolling/fraudulent concealment/discovery rule save the claims? | Tolling applies (fraudulent concealment/discovery rule) and delays accrual; claims timely. | No active concealment; facts available earlier so tolling not warranted. | Equitable tolling and fraudulent concealment/discovery rule do not apply on the pleadings; claims remain time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (establishes that §1983 borrows state personal-injury limitations)
- Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (requires courts to use the state’s general/residual personal-injury statute for §1983 claims)
- Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656 (discussion of borrowing state limitations when federal statute lacks one)
- Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty. Coll., 72 F.3d 615 (analogizing Title IX to §1983 for limitations purposes)
- Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512 (Fifth Circuit on accrual and awareness for §1983 claims)