Opinion ID: 4539940
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: M. and N.M. from the third grade.

Text: The parties dispute the circumstances around the removal. Parker states that—once A.M. and N.M. started the third grade—A.M. and N.M. underwent assessments of their academic abilities to determine whether they were appropriately placed in the third grade. Yu Kim-Johnson and Esther Caballero, A.M. and N.M.’s third grade teachers at the time of removal, respectively state that the assessments and their observations of A.M. and N.M. showed that A.M. and N.M. were not academically suited for the third grade. Specifically, Parker states that the assessments showed that A.M. and N.M. “had difficulty with third-grade level reading comprehension” and that their comprehension was “very limited.” Kim-Johnson and Caballero state that, after the assessments, they met with Appellant to discuss the children’s difficulties with the third-grade curriculum. Both teachers state, “As a result 1 Appellees refer to the School as the “Ramirez International Baccalaureate School.” But, below, their motion for summary judgment refers to the School as the “Ramirez Elementary School.” Appellant and the district court refer to the School as the “Ramirez Elementary School.” So, too, does the School’s official website. See RAMIREZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, www.lubbockisd.org/ramierz (last visited Jan. 15, 2020). For these reasons, we refer to the school as the “Ramirez Elementary School.” 2 Case: 19-10832 Document: 00515444897 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/08/2020 No. 19-10832 of the meeting, it was decided that it would be best for both NM and AM to be placed in the second grade to finish the 2016–2017 school year.” Appellant, for her part, states that—prior to enrolling her children at the School—she was told that A.M. and N.M. would be placed in the third grade and that that decision was final. Appellant states that she never met with A.M. and N.M.’s teachers prior to the children’s removal and that A.M. and N.M. “were doing fine in their subjects” at the time of removal. Appellant instead states that she met with Parker several days before A.M. and N.M. were removed and that, at this meeting, Parker stated that she was concerned that A.M. and N.M. would fail an upcoming third-grade State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (“STAAR”) test. Appellant states that Parker (1) informed her that A.M. and N.M. would need to repeat the third grade if they failed the STAAR test and (2) suggested removing them to the second grade. Appellant states that it was only later that she learned that failing the third-grade STAAR test would not preclude A.M. and N.M. from progressing to the fourth grade. Parker does not directly refute Appellant’s statements regarding Parker’s comments about the STAAR test; however, Parker states that if A.M. and N.M. took the third-grade STAAR test and failed, it would have “gone on their record” but otherwise not affected “the accountability ratings of Ramirez Elementary or LISD.” In any case, Appellant did not formally file a complaint with LISD about the removal. Instead, on May 21, 2018, Appellant sent a letter about A.M. and N.M.’s removal to LISD’s Board of Trustees. 2 On June 7, 2018, Appellant met with Parker, Kim-Johnson, LISD interim associate superintendent Sam Ayres, and LISD associate superintendent Doyle Vogler. At the meeting, Appellant Even if this letter is construed as a complaint, Appellant does not dispute that it was 2 untimely and did not comply with LISD policy regarding the filing of complaints. 3 Case: 19-10832 Document: 00515444897 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/08/2020 No. 19-10832 stated that she did not want her children—who were set to start the fourth grade—accelerated to the fifth grade. 3 Instead, she stated that she wanted an investigation opened into A.M. and N.M.’s removal from the third grade. In response, Vogler stated that he and Ayres had already investigated the removal and determined that the removal was appropriate. Subsequently, Appellant filed this suit, which alleged that Appellees violated Appellant’s rights when A.M. and N.M. were removed from the third grade. Specifically, Appellant brought three actions under, respectively, (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983—through which she alleged that Appellees violated Appellant’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under the law; (2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.; and (3) the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. Two summary judgment motions were filed. First, Parker—who was sued in her individual and official capacities—moved for summary judgment on Appellant’s individual-capacity claims. The district court granted this motion and entered partial final judgment on the individual-capacity claims. 4 Second, LISD and Parker—now in her official capacity only—moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims. The district court also granted 3 At the time of the meeting, A.M. and N.M. had successfully completed the second and third grades. 4 The judgment was entered separately from the order granting summary judgment in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a). The judgment was also entitled “Judgment.” For these reasons, the district court’s clear intent was to enter partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Kelly v. Lee’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers, Inc., 908 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1990) (en banc). The district court’s ruling as to the individual-capacity claims was therefore appealable once the partial final judgment was entered even though final judgment was not yet entered with respect to the remaining claims. See id. 4 Case: 19-10832 Document: 00515444897 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/08/2020 No. 19-10832 this motion and entered partial final judgment on the remaining claims. Appellant timely appealed from the second partial final judgment. 5