2 F.4th 407
5th Cir.2021Background
- T.O., a first-grade student with ADHD and Oppositional Defiant Disorder, had a Behavioral Intervention Plan and a classroom aide.
- After disruptive behavior in 2017, the aide put T.O. in the hallway; teacher Angela Abbott intervened and, after T.O. pushed her, grabbed his neck, threw him to the floor, and held a choke hold for minutes.
- FBISD investigated the incident multiple times but did not discipline Abbott.
- Plaintiffs sued Abbott under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (substantive due process and Fourth Amendment) and sued FBISD under the ADA and § 504; defendants moved to dismiss.
- The district court dismissed all claims (qualified immunity on § 1983 claims; failure to plead disability-based discrimination) and denied leave to amend; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process (bodily integrity) | Abbott’s choke hold violated T.O.’s Fourteenth Amendment right | Incident was disciplinary; Fee/Ingraham bar substantive due process claims where adequate state remedies exist | Dismissed — bound by Fee/Ingraham; occurred in disciplinary context |
| Fourth Amendment (unreasonable seizure) | Force constituted an unlawful seizure | Not clearly established law that teacher’s momentary force violates Fourth Amendment; qualified immunity applies | Dismissed — qualified immunity; illegality not clearly established |
| ADA/§504 discrimination | FBISD/Abbott acted because of T.O.’s disability (physical force, failures to train/investigate/discipline) | Complaint lacks factual allegations showing acts were "by reason of" disability | Dismissed for failure to plead causation required for discrimination claims |
| Leave to amend (failure to meet scheduling order) | Plaintiffs sought to add details and a §504-referral claim | Amendments untimely; plaintiffs had facts earlier so no good cause under Rule 16 | Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion (no good cause) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) (corporal punishment implicates liberty interest; procedural due process not violated if adequate post-deprivation remedies exist)
- Fee v. Herndon, 900 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1990) (Fifth Circuit rule: corporal-punishment injuries do not state substantive due process claim when state provides adequate remedies)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990) (substantive due process violation actionable under § 1983 regardless of state remedies)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (excessive-force claims for pretrial detainees judged by objective reasonableness)
- Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) (takings claims can be brought in federal court without exhausting state remedies)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (state post-deprivation remedies may bar procedural due process §1983 claims)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (same principle regarding post-deprivation remedies)
- Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 871 (5th Cir. 2000) (applied Fee; Judge Wiener’s concurrence urged en banc reconsideration)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: factual plausibility required)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: plausibility pleading rule)