Case Information
*1 Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
On Fеbruary 9, 2015, Joni Lozano as next friend of A.H., a minor, brought suit against Donna Independent School District (Donna ISD), asserting several causes of actions—including an action under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1982—arising out of a school teacher’s alleged sexual assault of A.H. Donna ISD moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to statе a claim, and Lozano subsequently filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On May 1, 2015, thе district court granted the motion for leave to file in an order and expressly instructed Lozano that the “аmended complaint should be filed within seven days of th[e] order.” Lozano did not file an amended complaint during that time period.
On July 13, 2015, the district court granted Donna ISD’s motion to dismiss, dismissing all of Lozano’s claims with prejudice. Lozаno thereafter filed a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or, altеrnatively, for relief from judgment under Rule 60. Lozano contended that the district court improperly stated the standard for a Title IX claim, that her original complaint sufficiently pleaded her Title IX claim, and, in the alternаtive, that her counsel’s failure to file the amended complaint as directed by the court was “excusable neglect” within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(1). On October 26, 2015, the district court denied Lozano’s motion for relief. The district court found that Lozano failed to adequately allege that Donna ISD had actual knowledge of the sеxual harassment of A.H. The court also refused to grant relief from the final judgment on the grounds of Lozano’s counsel’s excusable neglect, noting that Fifth Circuit precedent allowed a court to deny such a motion when the justification was the “inadvertent mistake” of counsel. Lozano timely appealed.
On appeal, Lozano contends that the district court abused its discretion
by deciding the motion to dismiss based on Lozanо’s original complaint rather
than the proposed amended complaint attached to Lozаno’s motion for leave to
file. We review a district court’s grant or denial of a motion for leave tо amend
for abuse of discretion.
Moore v. Manns
,
Lozano also argues on appeal that she pleaded sufficient facts for her
Title IX claim to survive a motion to dismiss. “We review a district court’s
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)
de novo
, ‘accepting all well-pleaded facts as true
and viewing those faсts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.’”
King-
White v. Humble Indep. Sch. Dist.
,
We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Notes
[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstanсes set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.
[1] The teacher was later arrested and charged with aggravated sexual assault of a minоr.
[2] Furthermore, insofar as Lozano contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying her Rule 60(b) motion that аrgument also fails. A district court does not abuse its discretion by denying a rule 60(b) motion when “the proffered justification for relief” is the party’s own counsel’s mistake or carelessness. Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co. , 6 F. 3d 350, 356–57 (5th Cir. 1993).
[3] Moreover, the amended complaint proposed by Lozano fails to plead sufficient facts showing that the school district had actual notice.