Filed: May 29, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 29, 2007 _ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-20988 _ HALEY KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CONROE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; ET AL., Defendants, CONROE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; DON STOCKTON, Defendants-Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston No. 4:03-CV-1295 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 29, 2007 _ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-20988 _ HALEY KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CONROE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; ET AL., Defendants, CONROE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; DON STOCKTON, Defendants-Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston No. 4:03-CV-1295 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT,..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 29, 2007
_______________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-20988
_______________________
HALEY KING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CONROE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; ET AL.,
Defendants,
CONROE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; DON STOCKTON,
Defendants-Appellees.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
No. 4:03-CV-1295
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Haley King appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to defendants Conroe Independent School District (“CISD”)
and Principal Don Stockton (“Stockton”) on her claims arising out
of sexual abuse committed against her by Felicia Shupp, a
volleyball coach employed by CISD. Having carefully and
independently reviewed the record, and having found no reversible
error, we AFFIRM.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
The summary judgment evidence reveals the following
details. What began as a friendship between a coach and a student-
athlete during the 1997-1998 school year, when King was an eighth-
grade student at CISD’s McCullough Junior High School, erupted into
a physical relationship during the summer of 1998, and shortly
thereafter evolved into a long period of frequent sexual contact.
In the fall of 1998, as the physical abuse was just
beginning, Ruth Stayton, a parent of a McCullough student,
overheard her son and his friend discussing an “affair” between a
female coach and a female student, in which the student and coach
were seen kissing and passing notes. She reported what she had
heard to McCullough principal Don Stockton, but did not give her
own name and could not identify the student.1 The conversation
occurred in a busy hallway and lasted only a few minutes. Stockton
stated he was unaware of any such relationship and did not think
the report was true, but that he would speak with Shupp. Stockton
and vice-principal Gale Drummond later met with Shupp. Shupp
denied any inappropriate relationship, and Stockton and Drummond
warned her to keep her relationships with students professional at
all times. Curiously, Stockton claims not to remember the
conversation with Stayton or the meeting with Shupp, although he
1
Stayton’s recollections differ as to whether she identified the
coach. In her 2002 statement to police, Stayton claimed she told Stockton she
“thought the name of the coach was Shupp.” However, in her 2004 affidavit, she
states it was Stockton who mentioned Shupp by name. Nonetheless, it is clear
that Stockton knew to which coach Stayton was referring, as Shupp was the only
coach with whom he subsequently met to discuss the alleged abuse.
2
does not deny they occurred.2 No further action or investigation
was taken by Stockton or other CISD officials.
The abuse finally ended in December 2001, almost three
and a half years after it had begun. In January 2002, King
reported Shupp to the police. Shupp pled guilty to sexual assault
of a child and was sentenced to seven years deferred adjudication
and forty-five days in the county jail.
In April 2003, King sued CISD, Stockton, and Shupp,
asserting violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX, 20 U.S.C.
§ 1681, as well as state law claims of negligence and gross
negligence. After dismissing the state law claims and severing the
case against Shupp, the district court granted summary judgment to
Stockton based on qualified immunity, and later granted summary
judgment to CISD. The district court also denied King’s motion to
enlarge time to conduct additional discovery. King now appeals.
This court reviews the district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as the district
court. Mayo v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 354 F.3d 400, 403 (5th Cir.
2004). Summary judgment is proper when “the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
2
Stockton claims that he has no memory of the sexual abuse
allegations. Stockton’s memory deficiencies, however, are ultimately irrelevant
to the legal analysis.
3
to a judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). The
court must review the facts in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant. Walker v. Thompson, 214 F.3d 615, 624 (5th Cir. 2000).
King alleges that Stockton violated § 1983 because he was
the principal of the school where Shupp worked and knew or was
placed on notice of, but failed to stop, the sexual relationship.
See Doe v. Taylor Indep. Sch. Dist., 15 F.3d 443, 445 (5th Cir.
1994) (en banc). A supervisory school official can be held liable
under § 1983 for an employee’s sexual abuse of a student when:
(1) the defendant learned of facts or a pattern of
inappropriate sexual behavior by a subordinate pointing
plainly toward the conclusion that the subordinate was
sexually abusing the student; and
(2) the defendant demonstrated deliberate indifference
toward the constitutional rights of the student by
failing to take action that was obviously necessary to
prevent or stop the abuse; and
(3) such failure caused a constitutional injury to the
student.
Id. at 454.
Assuming arguendo that Stayton’s conversation provided
Stockton with notice of the sexual abuse, King cannot establish
that Stockton acted with deliberate indifference toward her
constitutional rights. Stockton met with Shupp, questioned her
about the alleged relationship, and, upon receiving a denial,
warned her to keep her relationships with students professional at
all times. Based on the limited information he had, such action
satisfies the Doe v. Taylor standard. See id. at 456 n.12 (“We can
4
foresee many good faith but ineffective responses that might
satisfy a school official’s obligation in these situations, e.g.,
warning the state actor, notifying the student’s parents, or
removing the student from the teacher’s class.”).
Although his actions did not prevent the subsequent abuse
and suffering, “[a]ctions and decisions by officials that are
merely inept, erroneous, ineffective, or negligent do not amount to
deliberate indifference and thus do not divest the official of
qualified immunity.” Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 153 F.3d
211, 219 (5th Cir. 1998). Additionally, while King contends that
Stockton failed to follow CISD policies to investigate the abuse,
such a failure does not give rise to liability unless the plaintiff
can first prove “that all of the procedures...were obviously
necessary.” Hagan v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist.,
51 F.3d 48, 53
(5th Cir. 1995). In light of the limited information Stayton gave
Stockton, further action was not “obviously necessary.”
The test for this court to apply is not whether Stockton
did all he could, or should, have done, but whether he acted with
deliberate indifference to King’s constitutional rights. Because
there is no genuine issue of material fact concerning whether
Stockton acted with deliberate indifference, he is entitled to
qualified immunity on King’s § 1983 claim.
5
CISD is similarly entitled to summary judgment on King’s
Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, claim,3 as she is unable to raise a
fact issue that any CISD employee with supervisory authority over
Shupp knew about the sexual abuse and failed to stop it.4
Finally, King moved for a continuance before the district
court to enable her to conduct additional discovery on the
knowledge and authority of five individuals she claimed could
impute liability to CISD. We review this ruling for abuse of
discretion. Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan
Gas Bumi Negara, 364 F.3d 274, 304 (5th Cir. 2004). In requesting
more time, King failed to show how further discovery would create
a genuine issue of material fact, and instead “simply rel[ied] on
vague assertions that additional discovery will produce needed, but
3
Recovery of damages from a school district for a teacher’s sexual
harassment of a student requires proof that (1) a school district employee with
supervisory power over the offending teacher (2) had actual notice of the
harassment and (3) responded with deliberate indifference. Gebser v. Lago Vista
Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290,
118 S. Ct. 1989, 1999 (1998). To qualify
as a supervisory employee, the school official must serve in a position “with the
authority to repudiate that conduct and eliminate the hostile environment.” Rosa
H. v. San Elizario Indep. Sch. Dist.,
106 F.3d 648, 661 (5th Cir. 1997)(internal
quotation marks omitted)(emphasis in original). This test omits “the bulk of
employees, such as fellow teachers, coaches, and janitors.”
Id. at 660.
4
Stockton did not act with deliberate indifference based on the
limited information he received. King has not proven that the other CISD
individuals she identified had both knowledge of the abuse and the necessary
supervisory authority over Shupp. See Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290, 118 S. Ct. at
1999. Vice-principal Gale Drummond had similar information to Stockton and took
similar action; she was therefore not deliberately indifferent. Athletic
directors Karen Heintz and William Willig had neither supervisory authority over
Shupp, nor actual knowledge of the abuse. Although Ginger Leflar, Shupp’s
mother, witnessed the abuse and therefore clearly had knowledge of it, as a
fellow teacher, she is not a supervisory official whose conduct can be imputed
to CISD. See Rosa
H., 106 F.3d at 660-61. Finally, King cannot show that the
unidentified office employee with whom Stayton spoke before her discussion with
Stockton had any sort of supervisory authority over Shupp. See
id.
6
unspecified, facts.” Beattie v. Madison County Sch. Dist.,
254 F.3d 595, 606 (5th Cir. 2001)(internal quotation marks
omitted). The district court did not abuse its discretion.
The events leading up to this suit are tragic. In hindsight,
many people could have acted to prevent Haley King’s abuse.
However, based on the precedent in this circuit, King is not able
to create material fact issues suggesting that the CISD officials’
ineffective, and perhaps negligent, actions amounted to deliberate
indifference of her statutory or constitutional rights. The
judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to CISD
and Stockton is therefore AFFIRMED.
7
