416 F. App'x 354
5th Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Wade, proceeding pro se, sues on behalf of her daughter at Bernice Freeman Elementary School in the Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Equal Protection violations.
- Wade alleges school officials, including principal Walter Peterson, discriminated against her daughter based on race by requiring residency proof for district enrollment that was not required of non-African American parents.
- Wade alleges she had already provided residency proof and was uniquely asked to prove residency on two occasions, supported by claims that three non-African-American parents were not asked for proof.
- Defendants contend all parents, irrespective of race, were required to submit residency proof, and Peterson questioned whether Wade had moved out of the district.
- The case proceeded to trial before a magistrate judge and jury; after Wade’s case-in-chief, the magistrate judge granted judgment as a matter of law for the school district, and costs were assessed against Wade.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JMOL was appropriate for lack of evidence | Wade argues more time and evidence should have been allowed. | District presented no admissible evidence of disparate treatment or discriminatory intent. | Affirmed JMOL; no admissible evidence of disparate treatment or intent. |
| Whether costs were properly taxed against Wade | Wade cannot pay costs due to unemployment from an accident. | Rule 54(d) presumes costs to the prevailing party; Rivera is non-binding; Wade offered no Pacheco factors evidence. | Affirmed cost award; Wade failed to show equitable excusal factors. |
| Whether Wade adequately presented appellate objections | District court did not allow sufficient time to present evidence. | Record shows no preserved/clear objections to district rulings; briefs insufficient under Rule 28. | Court declined to reverse; reviewed issues and affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Longoria v. Dretke, 507 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 2007) (liberal construction of pro se briefs; need to brief issues)
- Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 1995) (requirement to brief issues under Rule 28)
- Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2006) (non-binding authority for costs excusal factors)
- Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2006) (five factors for excusing costs)
- United States v. Beaumont, 972 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1992) (strong presumption that prevailing party is entitled to costs)