Wright v. Denison Independent School District
4:16-cv-00615
E.D. Tex.May 24, 2017Background
- B.W., a high‑school baseball player, alleges coach Charles Bollinger made sexual comments to him and encouraged cheating; B.W. refused and (with his parents) complained to DISD officials.
- After complaints, B.W. claims DISD officials (Rogers, Scott, Kirkbride) failed to meaningfully investigate and retaliated by benching him and threatening removal from the program.
- Plaintiff Michael Wright sued on behalf of B.W. against Denison Independent School District (DISD) and four individual defendants, asserting Monell municipal‑liability, First Amendment retaliation, substantive due process and equal protection § 1983 claims, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing most Monell and due‑process claims but allowing the First Amendment retaliation claims to proceed; the District Court reviewed objections de novo.
- The Court agreed with most Magistrate findings but permitted Wright leave to amend his complaint to add new allegations that he emailed the DISD Board about the coach before a threatening meeting, which could implicate the Board and sustain Monell liability.
- The Court dismissed the substantive due process, equal protection, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the individual defendants; it allowed the First Amendment retaliation claims against both DISD (in part) and the individuals to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Monell pleading against DISD | Allegations of a de facto policy and boilerplate claims are sufficient; and Wright emailed the Board (newly alleged) putting them on notice | DISD argues Twombly/Iqbal require specific facts tying Board/policymaker to misconduct; new email allegation should be disregarded because not in the amended complaint | Court: Original complaint failed to plead Monell adequately as to the Board, but plaintiff is granted leave to amend to add the email allegations and attempt to plead Monell liability |
| First Amendment retaliation | Complaints to school officials about coach are protected speech; retaliation claims against individuals and DISD survive | Defendants did not contest survival of retaliation claims in part | Court: First Amendment retaliation claims survive against individual defendants and (in part) against DISD |
| Substantive due process (liberty/property interest) | Deprivation of participation in baseball class/team implicates a protected liberty or property interest in public education | Defendants: Participation in a particular curriculum or extracurricular does not create a protected Fourteenth Amendment interest; B.W. was not removed from school | Court: Dismissed substantive due process claim — no protected liberty/property interest implicated |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) & equal protection | IIED and equal protection alleged against individuals/DISD | Defendants: Texas law and immunity bar IIED; complaint lacks facts supporting equal protection | Court: IIED and equal protection claims dismissed as to the individual defendants and DISD (to the extent asserted) |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires a policy or custom)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (municipal deliberate indifference and training liability standard)
- Board of County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (rigorous causation and culpability required for municipal liability)
- Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156 (Fifth Circuit on requirement that municipality itself cause constitutional violation)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of plausibility standard to complaints)
- Nevares v. San Marcos Consolidated Independent School District, 111 F.3d 25 (no protected interest in participation in particular curriculum or interscholastic athletics)