"Schooled" On The Law IN Public Education

J.W. v. Paley, No. 19- 20429 (5th Cir. Jun. 23, 2023)

Abstract: A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit three-judge panel has issued a per curiam decision reversing the district court’s denial summary judgment in favor of the defendant school resource officer based qualified immunity. The panel, having determined a split among courts in the Fifth Circuit on the issue of whether the Fourth Amendment should be applied to a school official’s use of force, stated such “divide in our authority is the antithesis of clearly established law supporting the existence of Fourth Amendment claims in this context.” It, therefore, held the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity for the student’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.

Issue: Whether school resource officer was entitled to qualified immunity from a student’s §1983 claim the officer’s seizure of the student constituted the use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Facts: J.W. was a 17-year[1]old special education student at Mayde Creek High. 1 One day he got into an argument with another student over a card game. He cursed, yelled, and punched the other student before storming out of a classroom and into a hallway. J.W. went to a “chill out” classroom he would go to when he was upset, but another student was already there. He threw a desk across the room, kicked a door, and yelled that he hated the school. J.W. then headed toward doors leading out of the school.

School officials who saw J.W.’s outbursts notified Assistant Principal Denise Majewski, who in turn asked school resource officer Elvin Paley for help keeping J.W. inside the building. When Paley arrived at the exit, a security guard, another school resource officer, a school coach, and Majewski were already there.

School officials called emergency medical services and the school nurse. Eventually, J.W. was taken to a hospital. J.W. missed several months of school after the incident. J.W. contends he suffers from severe anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder as a result of the tasing. J.W. and his mother brought various claims against Paley and Katy Independent School District.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted on all claims except for a section 1983 claim against Paley alleging excessive force under the Fourth Amendment right. Paley filed this interlocutory appeal, which is allowed for denials of qualified immunity that turn “on an issue of law.”

Holding/Rationale:  The Fifth Circuit panel reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment and rendered judgment in favor Paley. Citing Fifth Circuit precedent in Morgan v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc), the panel stated that per U.S. Supreme Court precedent it need only consider the second prong of the qualified immunity test, i.e., “that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

The panel began its analysis stating: “We start with an issue on which our law is quite clear even if it is at odds with the law in in other circuits: students cannot assert substantive due process claims against school officials based on disciplinary actions.” It pointed out that “[]erhaps the rejection of a substantive due process right does not also doom the more specific right to be free from unreasonable seizures.” It conceded:

J.W. can find some support in our caselaw for his Fourth Amendment claim. In a case dealing with a student’s claim of excessive detention (though not excessive force), we said that the Fourth Amendment “right extends to seizures by or at the direction of school officials.”

However, the panel found: “The problem for J.W. is that at least one decision from our court, albeit an unpublished one, rejected the notion of Fourth Amendment claims based on school discipline. We reasoned that allowing a Fourth Amendment challenge to a teacher’s choking a student would “eviscerate this circuit’s rule against prohibiting substantive due process claims” based on the same conduct.”

The panel, therefore, concluded:

The upshot is that our law is, at best for Paley, inconsistent on whether a student has a Fourth Amendment right to be free of excessive disciplinary force applied by school officials. That does not make for either the “controlling authority” or “consensus of cases of persuasive authority” needed to show a right is clearly established.

In conclusion, the panel observed: “Citing many of the cases we have just discussed, our court recently held that a plaintiff could not identify a clearly established Fourth Amendment right against school officials’ use of excessive force. See T.O., 2021 WL 2461233, at * 4. That conclusion renders Paley immune from the Fourth Amendment claim asserted in this case.”