Doe v. Silsbee (the cheerleader case)

[toastbutter]

Here's the actual case. I have seen a lot of misinformation, etc. posted about this case. It benefits one to go to the horse's mouth, the actual decision rendered by the court that dismissed the cheerleader's claim. Whatever side one is on this, it is a good idea to get the facts from the actual decision vs. a misleading article about same. This is not copyrighted material, so I am printing the case in its entirety.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-41075
Summary Calendar
JOHN DOE, Father of Minor Daughter H.S.; JANE DOE, Mother of Minor
Daughter H.S.; H. S., Minor Daughter of John and Jane Doe,
Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
SILSBEE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; RICHARD BAIN, JR.,
Superintendent; GAYE LOKEY, Principal; SISSY MCINNIS; RAKHEEM
BOLTON; DAVID SHEFFIELD,
Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
No. 1:09-CV-374
Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Parents John and Jane Doe, and their minor daughter, H.S. (collectively,
“Appellants”), appeal the district court’s FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of their
42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against District Attorney David Sheffield (“Sheffield”),
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
September 16, 2010
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 09-41075 Document: 00511235594 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/2010
No. 09-41075
Silsbee Independent School District (“SISD”), Richard Bain, Jr., Gaye Lokey,
Sissy McInnis (collectively, “Appellees”), and Rakheem Bolton.1
This claim arises from John and Jane Doe’s allegation that their daughter,
H.S., was sexually assaulted at a party by Bolton and Christian Rountree,2
fellow students at H.S.’s high school. Appellants claim that after the arrest,
Sheffield told them that despite having enough evidence to go to trial, the grand
jury was racially divided and therefore would not vote to return an indictment
against Rountree and Bolton, who were African-American. The grand jury
ultimately voted against indicting Rountree and Bolton. Appellants claim that
after the vote, they heard derogatory comments in the community about H.S.
that indicated a detailed knowledge of the official investigation and grand jury
proceedings.
As a cheerleader for SISD, H.S. was contractually required to cheer for the
basketball team, whose roster included Bolton. At a February game, H.S.
cheered for the team but refused to cheer for Bolton individually. As a result,
Bain and Lokey told H.S. that she had either to cheer when the others cheered
or to go home. H.S. chose to leave, and McInnis subsequently removed her from
the squad for the rest of the year. H.S. was permitted to try out for the squad
again the following year.
Appellants originally filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Appellees
filed FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) motions for failure to state a claim. The district
court denied Appellees’ motions but requested that Appellants file an amended
complaint that “clearly and concisely state factual allegations that support
the elements of the asserted causes of action.” Appellants filed an amended
Pursuant to supplemental state law claims, Bolton is a party to this appeal. He has 1
not filed any briefing on appeal.
Rountree is no longer a party to this appeal. 2
2
Case: 09-41075 Document: 00511235594 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/16/2010
No. 09-41075
complaint. Appellees again moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. This
time, the district court granted the motion to dismiss. This appeal followed.
We review de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of a claim, “accepting all wellpleaded
facts as true and viewing those facts in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” True v. Robles, 571 F.3d 412, 417 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). FED R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading
contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim is
appropriate when the plaintiff has not alleged enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face, and when the plaintiff fails to plead facts
“enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption
that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007).
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a state actor has
violated “a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535
(1981)). Appellants claim that Sheffield deprived H.S. of her right to freedom
from bodily injury and stigmatization, which Appellants allege are protected
liberty interests under the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, they argue that
subsequent to the grand jury’s decision not to indict Rountree and Bolton,
Sheffield “defamed” H.S. in a press conference and illegally revealed details of
the indictment hearing. Appellants are correct that “bodily integrity” constitutes
a protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Doe v.
Taylor Indep. Sch. Dist., 15 F.3d 443, 450–51 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that a
student was deprived of a protected liberty interest when sexually assaulted by
her teacher). However, psychological injury alone does not constitute a violation
of bodily integrity as contemplated under the Fourteenth Amendment. See
Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) (involving physical confinement); Ingraham
3
Case: 09-41075 Document: 00511235594 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/16/2010
No. 09-41075
v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) (involving corporal punishment); Spacek v.
Charles, 928 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. App.))Houston 1996) (involving corporal
punishment). Furthermore, freedom from false stigmatization does not
constitute a protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. Our
case law “does not establish the proposition that reputation alone, apart from
some more tangible interest such as employment, is either ‘liberty’ or ‘property’
by itself sufficient to invoke the procedural protection of the Due Process
Clause.” Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 (1976). Accordingly, Appellants have
not stated valid claims for violation of any liberty interests protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Appellants also contend that SISD, Bain, Lokey, and McInnis deprived
H.S. of a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Specifically, they claim that H.S. had a property interest in her position on the
cheer squad, and Lokey and McInnis deprived H.S. of that interest when they
removed her from the cheer squad. “Students do not possess a constitutionally
protected interest in their participation in extracurricular activities.” NCAA v.
Yeo, 171 S.W.3d 863, 865 (Tex. 2005). Moreover, according to the terms of H.S.’s
cheerleading contract, her failure to cheer constituted valid grounds for her
removal from the cheer squad. Accordingly, the district court was correct in
dismissing Appellants’ claim for unconstitutional deprivation of property.
Appellants further argue that SISD, Bain, Lokey, and McInnis violated
H.S.’s right to equal protection. Specifically, they claim H.S. was treated
differently “because she is a female.” “It is well established that a showing of
discriminatory intent or purpose is required to establish a valid equal protection
claim.” U.S. v. Crew, 916 F.2d 980, 984 (5th Cir. 1990) (citing Washington v.
Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976), and Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev.
Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977)). Because Appellants make no showing that H.S.’s
4
Case: 09-41075 Document: 00511235594 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/16/2010
No. 09-41075
gender motivated any of Appellees’ actions, their equal protection argument
fails.
Appellants allege Sheffield deprived H.S. of her First Amendment right to
freedom of speech by retaliating against her for filing sexual assault charges
against Bolton and Rountree. However, Appellants make no showing that
Sheffield’s alleged retaliatory acts relate to H.S.’s accusations against Rountree
and Bolton. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed this claim on
Sheffield’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Finally, Appellants claim SISD, Bain, Lokey, and McInnis violated H.S.’s
right to free speech under the First Amendment because H.S.’s decision not to
cheer constituted protected speech inasmuch as it was a symbolic expression of
her disapproval of Bolton’s and Rountree’s behavior. Courts have long held that
public school students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of
speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Ind.
Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 511 (1969). In order to determine whether
conduct “possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First
Amendment into play, must ask whether an intent to convey a
particularized message was present, and whether the likelihood was great that
the message would be understood by those who viewed it.” Canady v Bossier
Parish School Board, 240 F.3d 437, 440 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Texas v. Johnson,
491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989)).
Appellants contend the district court erred in holding that H.S. “did not
convey the sort of particularized message that symbolic conduct must convey to
be protected speech.” Even assuming arguendo that H.S.’s speech was
sufficiently particularized to warrant First Amendment protection, student
speech is not protected when that speech would “substantially interfere with the
work of the school.” Tinker, 393 U.S. at 509. “The question whether the First
Amendment requires a school to tolerate particular student speech . . . is
5
Case: 09-41075 Document: 00511235594 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/16/2010
No. 09-41075
different from the question whether requires a school affirmatively to
promote particular speech.” Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260,
270 (1988). In her capacity as cheerleader, H.S. served as a mouthpiece through
which SISD could disseminate speech))namely, support for its athletic teams.
Insofar as the First Amendment does not require schools to promote particular
student speech, SISD had no duty to promote H.S.’s message by allowing her to
cheer or not cheer, as she saw fit. Moreover, this act constituted substantial
interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, H.S. was at
the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook
voluntarily. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Appellants’
First Amendment claim against SISD, Bain, Lokey, and McInnis.
Neither Appellants’ complaint, nor any of their subsequent filings, assert
constitutional violations against Sheffield, SISD, Bain, Lokey, or McInnis upon
which Appellants could plausibly recover under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, the
district court did not err in dismissing Appellants’ claims. Furthermore, the
district court was within its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Appellants’ state law claims against Bolton.
AFFIRMED.
6
Case: 09-41075 Document: 00511235594 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/16/2010

[rug]

1. Here's a link to a clearer copy of the decision.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/09/09-41075.0.wpd.pdf

Here's the bullshit part:

Appellants allege Sheffield deprived H.S. of her First Amendment right to
freedom of speech by retaliating against her for filing sexual assault charges
against Bolton and Rountree. However, Appellants make no showing that
Sheffield’s alleged retaliatory acts relate to H.S.’s accusations against Rountree
and Bolton. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed this claim on
Sheffield’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

[toastbutter]

2. yea, that's the same link

I copied and pasted from. It's a pretty terse and 'easy' decision.