IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20548

BRITTNEY TERRY, 

 Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

STEVE KINNEY, Principal of Westfield High School; REX GROZIER; 

CORBY MEEKINS, 

 Defendants–Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-1323

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This case arises from an improper sexual relationship between Shae 

McCutchen, a former Westfield High School coach and health teacher, and 

Brittney Terry, a former student at Westfield. Terry reported the improper 

relationship to police and McCutchen pleaded guilty to the resulting charges. 

Terry filed this § 1983 complaint against Steve Kinney, Rex Grozier,1 and 

 

* 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.

1 While this appeal was pending, a Suggestion of Death of Rex Grozier was filed.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 22, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20548 Document: 00513688599 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2016
No. 15-20548

2

Corby Meekins, who were all supervisors of McCutchen at the time of the 

abuse, alleging that they violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily 

integrity by failing to prevent or stop the improper relationship. The 

defendants each moved to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds, contending 

that Terry’s Third Amended Complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to state 

a supervisory liability claim against them. The district court, acting on reports 

and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge, denied each motion. 

The defendants timely appealed. 

“Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability so 

long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or 

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”2 As 

the parties recognize, Terry had a clearly established liberty interest in her 

bodily integrity guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment that was violated 

by McCutchen’s misconduct.3 The defendants, as McCutchen’s supervisors 

during the relevant period, may be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if they 

“learned of facts or a pattern of inappropriate sexual behavior by [McCutchen]

pointing plainly toward the conclusion that the subordinate was sexually 

abusing [Terry]” and “demonstrated deliberate indifference toward the 

constitutional rights” of Terry, if that failure to take action caused Terry a 

constitutional injury.4

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.’”5 After carefully reviewing the complaint in light of the briefs and 

 

2 Carroll v. Ellington, 800 F.3d 154, 169 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Rockwell v. Brown, 

664 F.3d 985, 990 (5th Cir. 2011)), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2016) (No. 16-128). 3 See Doe v. Taylor Indep. Sch. Dist., 15 F.3d 443, 455 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

4 Id. at 454.

5 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

 Case: 15-20548 Document: 00513688599 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2016
No. 15-20548

3

oral argument, we conclude that the district court properly denied the 

defendants’ motions to dismiss because the complaint adequately stated a 

plausible claim for relief. First, the complaint’s well-pleaded factual 

allegations, taken as true, support a conclusion that the defendants were 

aware of facts that “point[ed] plainly” to the abuse in question.6 The complaint 

alleges that Meekins “warned” McCutchen about the relationship; Kinney was 

told by Terry herself about rumors that Terry was pregnant with McCutchen’s 

child; and Grozier, among other things, allegedly “knew of the multitude of 

rumors concerning . . . McCutchen having an improper sexual relationship.” 

Second, the complaint adequately alleges that the defendants responded with 

deliberate indifference to Terry’s constitutional rights. According to the 

complaint, Kinney and Grozier each failed to take action in response to the 

rumors. With regard to Meekins, though the allegations are thin indeed, we 

cannot say at this juncture whether something more than his warning to 

McCutchen about the relationship was “obviously necessary to prevent or stop 

the abuse.”7 

We thus conclude that the complaint alleged sufficient facts regarding 

all three defendants and AFFIRM the district court’s denials of the defendants’ 

motions to dismiss and REMAND for further proceedings. Our decision is 

without prejudice to the defendants’ right to reassert their defenses following 

further development of the case. 

 

6 See Taylor Indep. Sch. Dist., 15 F.3d at 454.

7 Id.

 Case: 15-20548 Document: 00513688599 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/22/2016