Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10556/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10556-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10556

C.C., Individually, by and through his next friends, Charles Cripps and 

Kristie Cripps,

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

HURST-EULESS-BEDFORD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-1042

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

C.C. is a student with a disability. The Hurst-Euless-Bedford 

Independent School District (“HEBISD”) placed C.C. in a Disciplinary 

Alternative Education Program (“DAEP”) after C.C. photographed another 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 8, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10556 Document: 00513539543 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2016
No. 15-10556

2

student sitting on the toilet in the restroom at school without that student’s 

consent.1

C.C. claims that HEBISD violated the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act and other constitutional and statutory provisions when it failed 

to reevaluate his DAEP placement after the Tarrant County Juvenile 

Authority declined to prosecute him for the felony of invasive visual recording.

The district court entered judgment in HEBISD’s favor, and C.C. now appeals.

After carefully reviewing the district court’s order, the parties’ 

arguments, the relevant case law, and all of the evidence in the record, we 

conclude that the district court committed no reversible error. We therefore 

affirm the judgment essentially for the reasons given by the district court.2

AFFIRMED.

 

1 HEBISD determined that C.C.’s acts of illicit photography were not a manifestation 

of his disability, and C.C. does not challenge that determination on appeal.

2 We also affirm the district court’s order denying C.C.’s motion to conduct discovery, 

as well as the court’s order denying C.C.’s motion to remand the case to the Texas Education 

Agency for a rehearing.

 Case: 15-10556 Document: 00513539543 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2016