Court Opinion

ID: 9404431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 00:00:44.6624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.826780
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50295     Document: 00516796556         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/22/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                             Fifth Circuit

                                 ___________                               FILED
                                                                       June 22, 2023
                                  No. 22-50295                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                 ___________                               Clerk

   Nidia Heston, As next of friend and mother to A.H., a minor child,

                                                           Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                      versus

   Austin Independent School District,

                                            Defendant—Appellee.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 1:21-CV-35
                  ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Patrick E. Higginbotham, Circuit Judge:
          Nidia Heston (“Heston”) sued the Austin Independent School
   District (“AISD”) on behalf of her minor son, A.H., alleging that AISD
   violated § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“§ 504”), the Americans
   with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”) by
   employing an individual assigned to help A.H. accommodate his disabilities,
   but who instead verbally harassed him and threw a trash can at him, hitting
   him and causing injury. After the incident, the parties settled all of A.H.’s
   Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) claims outside of
   court but agreed that Heston still had the right to file a separate action
Case: 22-50295      Document: 00516796556          Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/22/2023

                                    No. 22-50295

   containing A.H.’s claims arising under § 504, the ADA, and § 1983. Heston
   then brought these claims in a suit filed in 2018. The district court dismissed
   the suit without prejudice for Heston’s failure to exhaust the Individuals with
   Disabilities Education Act’s (“IDEA”) administrative remedies (and failure
   to show exhaustion was futile). See generally Heston, Next friends of A.H. v.
   Sch. Bd. of Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 18-CV-18, 2018 WL 11486915 (W.D.
   Tex. Dec. 7, 2018). This Court affirmed that dismissal. See generally Heston,
   Next Friend of A.H v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 816 F. App’x 977 (5th Cir.
   2020) (unpublished) (per curiam).
          Heston then filed this suit, bringing nearly identical claims under the
   same three statutory provisions against AISD, with the same factual
   allegations as the prior case. The district court dismissed the complaint,
   holding that issue preclusion barred Heston from relitigating the same issues
   as in the first case. See generally Heston v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., No.
   21-CV-35, 2022 WL 958383 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2022). Heston timely
   appealed.
          Since Heston appealed and the Parties’ briefed the case, the Supreme
   Court decided Luna Perez v. Sturgis Pub. Schs., 143 S. Ct. 859 (2023),
   concluding that the IDEA does not require administrative exhaustion “where
   a plaintiff brings a suit under another federal law for compensatory
   damages.” Id. at 864. This constitutes a “modification[] in controlling legal
   principles . . . render[ing] a previous determination inconsistent with the
   prevailing doctrine.” EEOC v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 48 F.3d 164, 170 (5th Cir.
   1995). Since issue preclusion “must be confined to situations where the
   matter raised in the second suit is identical in all respects with that decided
   in the first proceeding and where the controlling facts and applicable legal
   rules remain unchanged,” Comm’r v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 599–600 (1948),
   it is not warranted in this instance. See also Brister v. A.W.I., Inc., 946 F.2d
   350, 354 n.1 (5th Cir. 1991) (“Not only the facts, but also the legal standard

                                          2
Case: 22-50295     Document: 00516796556           Page: 3      Date Filed: 06/22/2023

                                    No. 22-50295

   used to assess them, must be identical.” (citing Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v.
   Smith Material Corp., 616 F.2d 111, 115 (5th Cir. 1980))).
                                      ****
          The judgment of the District Court is VACATED, and the case is
   REMANDED to the District Court for further consideration in light of
   Luna Perez.

                                         3