Court Opinion

ID: 9384182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-01 00:00:49.332334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:51.171690
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-20625     Document: 00516696973         Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/31/2023

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

                                                                              FILED
                                                                         March 31, 2023
                                  No. 21-20625
                                                                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                              Clerk
   Bronson McClelland,

                                                             Plaintiff–Appellant,

                                      versus

   Katy Independent School District; Kenneth Gregorski;
   Justin Graham; Henry Gaw; Robert Keith Meier; Ken
   Tabor; Stephanie Fulgencio; Katy Independent School
   District Police Department; KISD Board of Trustees;
   Gary Joseph; Joan McPherson; Courtney Doyle; Ashley
   Vann; Ashly Darnell; Leslie Haack; Rick Hull,

                                                           Defendants–Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                        Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-00520

   Before Wiener, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Jacques L. Wiener, Jr., Circuit Judge:
         Plaintiff-Appellant Bronson McClelland appeals the district court’s
   dismissal of his (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendants-Appellees on
   the basis of qualified and sovereign immunity; (2) overbreadth and void-for-
   vagueness claims; and (3) substantive and procedural due process claims. We
   AFFIRM.
Case: 21-20625       Document: 00516696973            Page: 2      Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                          21-20625

                                    I. BACKGROUND
      A. The Snapchat Video Incident
          On October 3, 2019, following a particularly heated football game
   between Katy High School (“KHS”) and Tompkins High School, Plaintiff-
   Appellant Bronson McClelland sent a video to Jose Hernandez. At the time,
   McClelland was a student at KHS and the starting quarterback of its football
   team. Hernandez was a student at Tompkins High School but not on its
   football team. After that game, McClelland, Hernandez, and other students
   gathered at an off-campus Whataburger restaurant and taunted each other in
   person and digitally via the Snapchat social media platform.1 While outside
   of the restaurant, McClelland recorded and sent a three-second video to
   Hernandez via Snapchat wherein McClelland stated, “[We’ll] put your
   mother[ ]cking ass in the hospital, n[ ]gga’. What the f[ ]ck.” Hernandez
   recorded that video using his phone, then sent it to several friends. Tunmise
   Adeleye, a Black student and football player at Tompkins High School,
   received the video and posted it to his personal Twitter page, so that it
   allegedly appeared that he received it directly from McClelland. The video
   quickly circulated and began attracting media attention.
          The next day, McClelland and his parents met with Defendants-
   Appellees Rick Hull, KHS’s Principal, and Gary Joseph, the KHS football
   coach. Hull and Joseph determined that McClelland would be suspended for
   two games and would immediately cease to be team captain. After that
   meeting, McClelland posted an apology on his personal Twitter account,
   explaining that he had been stripped of his captain position and suspended
   for two games. Within hours of this post, Hull and Joseph allegedly contacted
   McClelland’s father and demanded that McClelland remove the apology or

          1
            Snapchat allows users to share images and videos with their other “friends” on
   the Snapchat platform. The photos and videos typically disappear after recipients have
   viewed them.

                                             2
Case: 21-20625      Document: 00516696973         Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                      21-20625

   revise it to state that McClelland had been “suspended indefinitely.”
   McClelland alleges that Hull demanded the retraction because he did not
   want it to appear as though KISD had “rushed the investigation.”
   Defendant-appellee Katy Independent School District (“KISD”) then
   released its own statement about the incident, explaining that “a KHS
   student-athlete posted a video of himself on social media in which he used
   racially charged language to taunt a student-athlete on the opposing team.”
   KISD’s statement also said that “[t]he student responsible will face
   disciplinary consequences in accordance with the Katy ISD Discipline
   Management Student Code of Conduct and Athletic Code of Conduct.”
          McClelland alleges that KISD “promoted the false-narrative that
   Plaintiff was a racist” because KISD had full knowledge that McClelland did
   not send the video directly to a Black student or to a student on the opposing
   football team. McClelland also alleges that several days after the incident, in
   early October 2019, Joseph held a team meeting during which he admitted
   that he had previously tolerated the use of the N-word, but then announced
   a new rule prohibiting the use of that word. McClelland and his parents
   requested that KISD rescind or correct its public statement, but it refused to
   do so. McClelland claims that, as a result of this refusal, the NCAA
   recruitment efforts were suspended. In the months following the incident,
   McClelland and KISD corresponded back and forth in efforts to resolve the
   fallout from the alleged false statement. McClelland informed KISD that he
   would pursue legal remedies if the matter remained unresolved after
   September 18, 2020.
      B. The Vehicle Search
          On September 17, 2020, a canine unit with the KISD Police
   Department identified McClelland’s car in an allegedly random search of
   KHS’s parking lot. Defendant-appellee Officer Stephanie Fulgencio
   commenced a search and located .04 grams of a “green leafy substance” on
   the rear floor mat of the vehicle. Fulgencio summoned McClelland to the

                                         3
Case: 21-20625     Document: 00516696973         Page: 4     Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                     21-20625

   vehicle, where McClelland explained that he and his brother shared the
   vehicle. McClelland also denied ownership, knowledge, or possession of the
   presence and the nature of the green leafy substance. Before any testing was
   done to confirm the nature and quantity of the substance, defendant-appellee
   Assistant Principal Ashly Darnell, acting on behalf of KHS and KISD,
   charged McClelland with possession of marijuana under the Texas Health &
   Safety Code.
          On September 18, 2020, Hull held a disciplinary hearing during which
   Fulgencio stated that an “unusable amount” of the green leafy substance was
   found and would need to be tested for its tetrahydrocannabinol
   concentration. Three days later, Fulgencio confirmed that the substance was
   marijuana, and she and the KISD Police Department Assistant Chief Kevin
   Tabor (also a defendant-appellee) issued a supplemental police report
   reflecting this. McClelland was suspended for three days and placed in the
   Disciplinary Alternative Education Program (“DAEP”) for forty-five days.
   McClelland alleges that Fulgencio and Tabor falsified their supplemental
   report because the substance had only been tested for the existence of
   marijuana but not for its potency, which is required to establish that it
   exceeded the legal threshold for marijuana.
          Soon afterwards, McClelland sought to transfer out of the school
   district. He also challenged his DAEP placement through an appeal to KISD.
   McClelland and KISD eventually agreed to resolve the dispute and entered
   into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) on September 29, 2020. The
   Settlement contained a “complete and general release of claims by
   [McClelland’s] family” and a covenant not to sue, which would not be
   binding on McClelland if he were (1) denied admission to a transfer school or
   (2) not cleared by California regulations to participate in varsity sports
   because of the events at issue. The Settlement further provided that if
   McClelland were to enroll in KISD in the future, the disciplinary abatement
   would be null and void, and he would still be required to complete his time in

                                         4
Case: 21-20625      Document: 00516696973           Page: 5     Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                        21-20625

   the DAEP. The Settlement also required KISD to prepare forms stating that
   McClelland was not subject to discipline for the marijuana-related incident.
   KISD Superintendent (and a defendant-appellee) Dr. Ken Gregorski issued
   an official letter which stated that (1) McClelland did not intend to possess
   the substance on campus and (2) McClelland’s brother had come forward
   and admitted to possessing the substance found in their shared vehicle.
          After the Settlement was executed, McClelland attempted to transfer
   to a high school in California and then to Manor Senior High School in Texas.
   McClelland alleges that KISD provided erroneous transcripts to the
   California school which prevented him from transferring there. McClelland
   then enrolled at Manor High School but could not get his varsity sports
   eligibility reinstated because of various residency requirements. McClelland
   reenrolled at KHS on October 29, 2020. On McClelland’s return, Gregorski,
   Hull, and Justin Graham initiated an additional appeal concerning the
   marijuana offense. The three-member appeals panel determined that
   McClelland had violated the Texas Health & Safety Code for possession of
   marijuana. As a result, McClelland was placed back into the DAEP,
   preventing him from returning to KHS or its football team.
                             II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
          In January 2021, McClelland sued Forensic Laboratory, Inc., KHS,
   the KISD Police Department, the KISD Board of Trustees (“KISD Board”),
   and a number of KHS, KISD, and KISD Police Department employees in
   their individual and official capacities. That suit was filed in the state district
   court in Fort Bend County, Texas. McClelland alleged (1) violations of 42
   U.S.C. § 1983; (2) violations of his procedural and substantive due process
   rights; and (3) various state law claims, including defamation, spoliation, and
   civil conspiracy. The case was removed to the Southern District of Texas on

                                           5
Case: 21-20625        Document: 00516696973             Page: 6      Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                          21-20625

   February 17, 2021. After limited motions practice, Defendants-Appellees2
   filed a motion to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and to dismiss some
   claims under Rule 12(b)(1).
           In a twenty-seven-page Memorandum and Order issued on November
   1, 2021, the district court granted Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss
   and denied several other pending motions.3 Without fully reaching the merits
   of McClelland’s First Amendment claims, the district court held that each
   defendant-appellee was entitled to either qualified or sovereign immunity.
   The court explained that McClelland’s First Amendment rights were not
   clearly established at the time of the Snapchat incident because “there was
   no general rule that could have placed Defendants on notice that it would be
   unconstitutional to discipline Mr. McClelland for his off-campus speech.”
   The court further held that McClelland failed to state a claim for municipal
   liability because he did not “sufficiently connect the policymaker—here, the
   KISD Board—to the allegedly unconstitutional policy.”
           The district court also ruled that McClelland failed to state a void-for-
   vagueness claim because he did not show that he was deprived of a protected
   property right or liberty interest. The court further held that McClelland
   failed to show that his procedural and substantive due process rights were
   violated in connection with the discipline he received for possessing
   marijuana and to state an overbreadth claim because he could not point to
   other examples of conduct that would be unconstitutional under the Athletic

           2
               The moving parties comprised a smaller group than was originally sued. The
   movants (now Defendants-Appellees) included: KISD, KHS, Gregorski, Graham, Gaw,
   Meier, Tabor, Fulgencio, KISD Police Department, KISD Board, Joseph, McPherson,
   Doyle, Vann, Darnell, Haack, and Hull. Their motion to dismiss was supplemented shortly
   after filing to add KHS, which had been omitted inadvertently.
           3
             The other pending motions were (1) Defendants-Appellees’ motion to quash
   deposition notices; (2) McClelland’s motion to unseal the motions to quash deposition
   notices; and (3) McClelland’s motion to strike Defendants-Appellees’ affirmative defense.
   Only Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss is at issue in this appeal.

                                              6
Case: 21-20625           Document: 00516696973              Page: 7     Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                               21-20625

   Code of Conduct. Finally, the district court declined to exercise
   supplemental jurisdiction over McClelland’s state law claims and dismissed
   them without prejudice. McClelland timely appealed.
                                  III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
           We review a motion to dismiss de novo, accepting all well-pleaded facts
   as true and drawing all inferences in favor of the plaintiff.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 The
   district court is limited to the contents of the pleadings, including any
   attachments.6 Conclusional allegations, naked assertions, and “a formulaic
   recitation of a cause of action’s elements will not do.”7 When the defense of
   qualified immunity is raised in a motion to dismiss, “the [trial] court has an
   ‘obligation . . . to carefully scrutinize [the complaint] before subjecting public
   officials to the burdens of broad-reaching discovery.’”8
                                             IV. ANALYSIS
           McClelland contends that the district court erred by dismissing his
   free-speech related § 1983 claims on the basis of qualified immunity because
   (1)   Hull’s        regulation       of    McClelland’s    off-campus       speech      was
   unconstitutional; (2) McClelland’s free speech rights were clearly
   established at all relevant times; and (3) McClelland sufficiently pleaded
   Monell liability. McClelland also asserts that the district court erroneously
   dismissed his claims for vagueness and due process violations because he

           4
               Marks v. Hudson, 933 F.3d 481, 485 (5th Cir. 2019).
           5
            Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
   U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
           6
               Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498–99 (5th Cir. 2000).
           7
               Bell, 550 U.S. at 555.
           8
            Longoria Next Friend of M.L. v. San Benito Indep. Consol. Sch. Dist., 942 F.3d 258,
   263–64 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 791 (5th Cir. 1986)).

                                                  7
Case: 21-20625            Document: 00516696973              Page: 8      Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                               21-20625

   pleaded facts demonstrating that he was deprived of specific property and
   liberty interests as a result of Defendants-Appellees’ conduct. Finally,
   McClelland alleges that the district court erred in ruling that he had not
   stated a remediable overbreadth claim since he pleaded facts showing that
   “third parties would be damaged by [KISD’s] broad-sweeping regulations.”
            A.         McClelland’s First Amendment claims arising under 42
                       U.S.C. § 1983
            “To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must first show
   a violation of the Constitution or of federal law, and then show that the
   violation was committed by someone acting under color of state law.”9
   However, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government
   officials from civil damages liability when their actions could reasonably have
   been believed to be legal.”10 Once the defense of qualified immunity has been
   raised, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that “(1) the official
   violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was ‘clearly
   established’ at the time.”11 Courts may decide “which of the two prongs of
   the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the
   circumstances in the particular case at hand.”12 Once a court determines that
   the right asserted was not clearly established, it need not reach the more
   difficult constitutional question.13

            9
             Atteberry v. Nocona Gen. Hosp., 430 F.3d 245, 252–53 (5th Cir. 2005), abrogated on
   other grounds, Delaughter v. Woodall, 909 F.3d 130 (5th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted).
            10
                 Morgan v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359, 370 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
            11
                 Benfield v. Magee, 945 F.3d 333, 337 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Morgan, 659 F.3d at
   371)).
            12
                 Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).
            13
             Id. at 242; see also Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 707 (2011) (recognizing that
   “courts should think hard, and then think hard again, before turning small cases into large
   ones”); Morgan, 659 F.3d at 384 (“Because we have granted immunity to the [defendants]
   at step two of the qualified-immunity analysis, it is within our discretion to decline entirely
   to address the constitutionality of the defendants’ conduct.”).

                                                   8
Case: 21-20625           Document: 00516696973              Page: 9       Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                              21-20625

        i.            Overview of First Amendment free speech jurisprudence
          In 1969, the Supreme Court solidified public students’ free speech
   rights in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Commission School District.14 The
   Court protected such students’ right to engage in passive protests of the
   Vietnam War with black armbands, declaring that students do not “shed
   their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the
   schoolhouse gate.”15 The Court cautioned that public students’ free speech
   is not without limits, however, because of the “special characteristics of the
   school environment.”16 The Court held that schools have a special interest
   in regulating student conduct which “materially disrupts classwork or
   involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.”17 To satisfy
   this standard, schools must demonstrate that the speech in question actually
   caused, or may reasonably be forecast to cause, a “substantial disruption of
   or material interference with school activities.”18 In arriving at this decision,
   the Court balanced the students’ freedom of expression against the need to
   maintain a safe, effective learning environment.19
          Since Tinker was decided, the Supreme Court has recognized three
   narrow exceptions to the substantial disruption/material interference
   standard based on specific contents of student speech.20 These exceptions
   cover (1) “indecent,” “lewd,” or “vulgar” speech uttered during a school
   assembly on school grounds;21 (2) speech that promotes “illegal drug use” at

          14
               393 U.S. 503 (1969).
          15
               Id. at 506.
          16
               Id. at 506, 512–13.
          17
               Id. at 513.
          18
               Id. at 514.
          19
               Id.
          20
               Bell v. Itawamba Cty. Sch. Bd., 799 F.3d 379, 390 (5th Cir. 2015) (en banc).
          21
               Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 275, 683 (1986).

                                                  9
Case: 21-20625         Document: 00516696973              Page: 10       Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                             21-20625

   a school-sponsored event;22 and (3) speech that others may reasonably
   perceive as “bear[ing] the imprimatur of the school,” such as speech in a
   school-sponsored newspaper.23 In all three cases, the Court affirmed the
   schools’ right to censor the speech at issue without providing a forecast of
   substantial disruption.24 In justifying these carveouts, the Court explained
   that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not
   automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.”25
          The Supreme Court more recently offered guidance for off-campus
   speech in its June 2021 decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. ex rel
   Levy.26 In that case, the Court held that a disgruntled cheerleader’s off-
   campus Snapchat posts, which stated “F[ ]ck school f[ ]ck softball f[ ]ck
   cheer f[ ]ck everything,” were constitutionally-protected speech.27 The
   Court explained that there are “three features of off-campus speech” which
   “diminish the strength of the unique educational characteristics that might
   call for special First Amendment leeway.”28 These features are: (1) “a
   school, in relation to off-campus speech, will rarely stand in loco parentis”;
   (2) “regulations of off-campus speech, when coupled with regulations of on-
   campus speech, include all the speech a student utters during the full 24-hour
   day”; and (3) “the school itself has an interest in protecting a student’s
   unpopular expression, especially when the expression takes place off
   campus.”29 The Court declined to adopt a bright line rule or test to

          22
               Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 409 (2007).
          23
               Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 271 (1988).
          24
               Morse, 551 U.S. at 409; Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 271; Fraser, 478 U.S. at 683.
          25
               Morse, 551 U.S. at 396–97 (quoting Fraser, 478 U.S. at 682).
          26
               141 S. Ct. 2038 (2021).
          27
               Id. at 2043.
          28
               Id. at 2046.
          29
               Id.

                                                 10
Case: 21-20625          Document: 00516696973           Page: 11   Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                             21-20625

   distinguish protected versus unprotected off-campus speech, noting that
   “[w]e leave for future cases to decide where, when, and how these features
   mean the speaker’s off-campus location will make the critical difference.”30
          In the decades since Tinker, this court has grappled with whether—
   and to what extent—Tinker applies to off-campus speech. The ubiquity of
   social media has blurred the lines between off- and on-campus speech,
   causing increased difficulty for schools and parents alike. We have addressed
   the reach of Tinker to off-campus speech in three key cases: Porter v. Ascension
   Parish School Board31 (2004); Bell v. Itawamba County School Board32 (2015);
   and Longoria ex rel M.L. v. San Benito Independent Consolidated School
   District33 (2019).
          In Porter, we applied Tinker to the disciplinary action taken for a
   sketch drawn off-campus depicting a violent siege of a school.34 The sketch
   was drawn by a former student at his home and was inadvertently brought to
   campus by his younger brother two years later, where it was discovered by
   school officials.35 As a result, the younger brother was suspended, and the
   older brother was summoned to the office of his high school’s resource
   officer, where a search of his bookbag revealed a box cutter, a fake ID, and
   notebooks containing disturbing depictions.36 The high school officials
   recommended expulsion, and the older brother was jailed for four days for
   “terrorizing the school and carrying an illegal weapon.” This court held that
   the sketch was constitutionally-protected because it was: (1) created and

          30
               Id.
          31
               393 F.3d 608, 618 (5th Cir. 2004).
          32
               799 F.3d 379 at 401–02.
          33
               942 F.3d 258, 264 (5th Cir. 2019).
          34
               393 F.3d at 611, 619.
          35
               Id. at 611–12.
          36
               Id. at 612.

                                                11
Case: 21-20625          Document: 00516696973     Page: 12    Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                       21-20625

   stored off-campus, (2) displayed only to the artist’s family members, and (3)
   not intentionally taken on-campus or “publicized in a way certain to result in
   its appearance” at the school.37 We also held that the school principal was
   entitled to qualified immunity, concluding that Porter’s free speech rights
   had not been clearly established at the time of the incident, given the
   “unsettled nature of First Amendment law as applied to off-campus student
   speech inadvertently brought on campus by others.”38 This court went on to
   note that, even if Porter’s rights were clearly established during the relevant
   timeframe, the principal’s determination was objectively reasonable.39 We
   explained that “qualified immunity recognizes that school officials, such as
   Principal Braud, must be allowed to make reasonable mistakes when forced
   to act in the face of uncertainty.”40
          In Bell, this circuit held, en banc, that Tinker definitively applied to
   off-campus speech directed at the school community.41 Bell involved a
   student who created and posted a rap video to his personal Facebook and
   YouTube pages while he was off-campus, resulting in his suspension.42 The
   video contained threats, profanity, and intimidating language directed at two
   teachers in the student’s school.43 Qualified immunity was not contested on
   appeal, so we only examined whether the student’s speech was
   constitutionally protected.44 In applying Tinker’s “substantial disruption”
   test, this court focused on the nexus between the speech in question and the

          37
               Id. at 620.
          38
               Id.
          39
               Id. at 621.
          40
               Id.
          41
               799 F.3d at 383.
          42
               Id. at 383–84.
          43
               Id. at 384.
          44
               Id. at 389.

                                           12
Case: 21-20625          Document: 00516696973    Page: 13    Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                      21-20625

   school community.45 Concluding that the student had intentionally directed
   the video at the school community, we held that “a school official reasonably
   could find Bell’s rap recording threatened, harassed, and intimidated the two
   teachers; and a substantial disruption reasonably could have been forecast, as
   a matter of law.”46 We further noted that the school’s Administrative Policy
   “demonstrates an awareness of Tinker’s substantial-disruption standard, and
   the policy’s violation can be used as evidence supporting the reasonable
   forecast of a future substantial disruption.”47 We acknowledged that our
   “precedent is less developed” regarding off-campus speech, but declined to
   adopt a specific rule to apply moving forward.48
          Recently, in Longoria, this circuit decided an off-campus speech
   dispute on the basis of qualified immunity.49 Longoria involved a former head
   varsity cheerleader who was disciplined by her school for posting profanity
   and sexual innuendo on her personal Twitter account.50 The cheerleader
   asserted that her Tweets were constitutionally protected because they were
   posted off-campus and were not directed at the school community.51 We first
   analyzed whether the cheerleader’s free speech rights were clearly
   established during the relevant timeframe.52 Recognizing that we had
   recently declined to adopt a “specific rule” applicable to all off-campus
   speech, this court held that the cheerleader’s First Amendment rights were

          45
               Id.
          46
               Id. at 391.
          47
               Id. at 399.
          48
               Id. at 394.
          49
               942 F.3d at 261.
          50
               Id.
          51
               Id. at 264.
          52
               Id. at 265.

                                         13
Case: 21-20625          Document: 00516696973              Page: 14   Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                              21-20625

   not clearly established.53 We chose to forego the constitutional-violation
   inquiry, holding that the school officials were entitled to qualified
   immunity.54 Referencing Bell, this court noted that “the ‘pervasive and
   omnipresent nature of the internet’” raises difficult questions about what it
   means for a student using social media to direct his or her speech towards the
   school community.55 We further explained that “a more defined rule will be
   left for another day.”56
       ii.           Qualified Immunity as to Hull
          In this appeal, McClelland contends that the district court erred in
   holding that Hull, KHS’s principal during the relevant timeframe, was
   entitled to qualified immunity. Citing no case law in support, McClelland
   alleges that his First Amendment rights were clearly established at the time
   of the Snapchat incident. McClelland further asserts that the district court
   incorrectly based its qualified immunity analysis on whether the violation of
   McClelland’s rights was based on the Athletic Code of Conduct (“ACC”).
   McClelland contends that, in doing so, the district court “overlooked the
   plainly alleged and pleaded violations of the First Amendment in retaliation
   and compelled speech.”
          1.         Whether McClelland’s free speech rights were clearly
                     established
          “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law
   when, at the time of the challenged conduct, ‘[t]he contours of [a] right [are]
   sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable official would [have understood]

          53
               Id. at 267.
          54
               Id. at 270–71.
          55
               Id. at 269–70 (quoting Bell, 799 F.3d at 395, 403).
          56
               Id.

                                                 14
Case: 21-20625             Document: 00516696973              Page: 15       Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                                 21-20625

   that what he is doing violates that right.’”57 Courts “do not require a case
   directly on point,” but school officials are entitled to qualified immunity
   unless “existing precedent . . . placed the statutory or constitutional question
   beyond debate.”58 In other words, if “insufficient precedent existed to
   provide school officials with ‘fair warning’ that the defendants’ conduct
   violated the First Amendment,” the rights were not clearly established.59
              Here, the district court first analyzed whether McClelland’s First
   Amendment free speech rights were clearly established at the time of the
   Snapchat incident. That court reviewed relevant First Amendment
   jurisprudence and concluded that the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit
   had not clearly demarcated the limits of off-campus speech regulation.
   Quoting Longoria, the district court noted that “the Fifth Circuit’s cases
   have ‘failed to clarify the law governing school officials’ actions in
   disciplining off-campus speech.’”60 The district court concluded that “there
   was no general rule that could have placed Defendants on notice that it would
   be unconstitutional to discipline Mr. McClelland for his off-campus speech.”
   Specifically, the court held that there was no clearly established rule stating
   that discipline for a “threat of violence apparently stated in jest” is
   unconstitutional. The district court went on to hold that the individual
   Defendants-Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity and did not reach
   the merits of whether McClelland’s free speech rights were violated.61

              57
                   Ashcroft, 563 U.S. at 741 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640
   (1987)).
              58
                   Id.
              59
                   Jackson v. Ladner, 626 F. App’x 80, 89 (5th Cir. 2015).
              60
                   (quoting Longoria, 942 F.3d at 267).
              61
               The district court did not address whether the individual Defendants-Appellees
   were entitled to qualified immunity as to McClelland’s First Amendment compelled
   speech and retaliation claims. This is because McClelland abandoned these claims by
   failing to defend them in his opposition to the motion to dismiss, which is discussed further
   below.

                                                    15
Case: 21-20625          Document: 00516696973              Page: 16        Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                              21-20625

           The district court correctly concluded that there is no clearly
   established rule that could have placed Hull on notice that disciplining
   McClelland for his off-campus speech was unconstitutional. Our developing
   jurisprudence has not yet resulted in a rule that would have given fair warning
   to Hull and to “every ‘reasonable official’”62 in Hull’s position that
   suspending McClelland for his video was unconstitutional. Even Mahanoy,
   which was decided after the underlying incidents here, offers little assistance.
   In Mahanoy, the Supreme Court held that “[w]e leave for future cases to
   decide where, when, and how these features mean the speaker’s off-campus
   location will make the critical difference.”63 Here, McClelland’s free speech
   rights at the time of the Snapchat incident were not clearly established so as
   to defeat qualified immunity for Hull.
           2.         Whether McClelland’s speech was constitutionally-
                      protected
           The district court ended its qualified immunity analysis after
   concluding that McClelland’s free speech rights were not clearly established
   in relation to the Snapchat incident. As discussed above, it is entirely within
   the district court’s discretion to forego the constitutionality question after
   concluding that the rights at issue are not clearly established.64 The district
   court did not err in choosing to forego the constitutional inquiry.
           This court too may forego the more difficult constitutional inquiry.
   When the Supreme Court relaxed its strict adherence to the two-part
   qualified immunity protocol, it noted that engaging in the constitutional

           62
             Ashcroft, 563 U.S. at 741 (quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640); see also Longoria,
   942 F.3d at 269–70.
           63
                141 S. Ct. at 2046.
           64
                See, e.g., Pearson, 555 U.S. at 241; Camreta, 563 U.S. at 707; Morgan, 659 F.3d at
   384.

                                                  16
Case: 21-20625          Document: 00516696973               Page: 17       Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                              21-20625

   inquiry may be advantageous in some situations and detrimental in others.65
   For example, it is helpful in the development of constitutional precedent and
   “especially valuable for questions that do not frequently arise in cases in
   which a qualified immunity defense is unavailable.”66 At the pleading stage,
   however, this inquiry “may create a risk of bad decisionmaking,”67 since “the
   answer to whether there was a violation may depend on a kaleidoscope of
   facts not yet fully developed.”68 In Longoria, for example, we chose to forego
   the constitutional question altogether after determining that the student’s
   rights were not clearly established.69 Longoria also involved the review of a
   motion to dismiss.
          Here, the district court’s determination of qualified immunity as to
   defendant-appellee Hull was sound. This court will not engage in the
   constitutional inquiry because (1) it is evident that McClelland’s free speech
   rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident; and (2) the
   underlying case was disposed of at the motion-to-dismiss stage, before the
   facts were developed.
          3.         McClelland’s First Amendment retaliation and
                     compelled speech claims against Hull
          McClelland correctly points out that the district court did not examine
   his First Amendment retaliation and compelled speech claims in its
   memorandum and order dismissing this case. Defendants-Appellees contend
   that McClelland abandoned these claims by failing to defend or reassert them
   in his opposition to the motion to dismiss and subsequent briefing. In fact,
   McClelland did not defend or clearly mention these claims in his opposition

          65
               Pearson, 555 U.S. at 239–40.
          66
               Id. at 236.
          67
               Id. at 239.
          68
               Id. (quoting Dirrane v. Brookline Police Dep't, 315 F.3d 65, 70 (1st Cir. 2002)).
          69
               942 F.3d at 265.

                                                  17
Case: 21-20625              Document: 00516696973               Page: 18       Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                                   21-20625

   to the motion to dismiss, his supplemental reply regarding qualified
   immunity, or his motion to alter or amend the district court’s judgment.
   McClelland asserts that he never abandoned these claims, and that he did not
   brief them in his response to the motion to dismiss because Defendants-
   Appellees only alluded to them in their motion to dismiss. However, in their
   motion to dismiss, Defendants-Appellees clearly stated that they were
   “mov[ing] to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims” and even listed “free speech
   retaliation” as one of those claims.
               This circuit’s well-settled precedent instructs that a party abandons a
   claim by failing to defend it in response to motions to dismiss and other
   dispositive pleadings.70 Here, McClelland failed to defend or reassert his
   retaliation and compelled speech claims on three separate occasions prior to
   this appeal. Defendants-Appellees moved to dismiss all claims, and the
   district court dismissed all claims in its judgment. McClelland thus
   abandoned his First Amendment retaliation and compelled speech claims on
   appeal.
        iii.              Sovereign Immunity as to the KISD Board
               Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, municipalities cannot be held vicariously
   liable for the acts of their employees unless the plaintiff’s allegations satisfy
   particular requirements.71 In Monell v. Department of Social Services, the
   Supreme Court held that a plaintiff asserting municipal, or “Monell,” liability
   must demonstrate that “(1) an official policy (2) promulgated by the
   municipal policymaker (3) was the moving force behind the violation of a

               70
               See, e.g., Black v. N. Panola Sch. Dist., 461 F.3d 584, 588 n.1 (5th Cir. 2006)
   (plaintiff abandoned claim by failing to defend it in response to motion to dismiss); Magee
   v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 261 F. Supp. 2d 738, 748 n.10 (S.D. Tex. 2003) (“The Fifth
   Circuit makes it clear that when a party does not address an issue in his brief to the district
   court, that failure constitutes waiver on appeal.”); Vela v. City of Houston, 276 F.3d 659,
   679 (5th Cir. 2001) (defendant abandoned limitations defense by failing to raise it in
   summary judgment response).
               71
                    Monell v. Dept. Soc. Servs. Of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978).

                                                      18
Case: 21-20625          Document: 00516696973              Page: 19       Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                              21-20625

   constitutional right.”72 Since “the identity of the policymaker is a question
   of law . . . a plaintiff is not required to single out the specific policymaker in
   his complaint.”73 The “plaintiff need only plead facts that show that the
   defendant or defendants acted pursuant to a specific official policy, which
   was promulgated or ratified by the legally authorized policymaker.”74 Here,
   the parties agree that Texas law establishes the KISD Board as KISD’s final
   policymaker.75
           McClelland argues that he sufficiently pleaded Monell liability because
   he alleged facts that allowed the district court “to reasonably infer that the
   Board either (1) adopted policy that caused injury or (2) delegated to a
   subordinate officer authority to adopt such a policy.” McClelland contends
   that, by adopting the ACC, the KISD Board “was directly involved” in
   violating his constitutional rights. He points out that, at the motion-to-
   dismiss stage, he only needed to plead that the ACC was ratified or
   promulgated by the KISD Board. Finally, McClelland asserts that he pleaded
   facts demonstrating that KISD’s public announcement “was signed by Katy
   ISD and announced that discipline to be meted out was due to official policy”
   of the KISD Board. He thus contends that the district court erred in holding
   that the KISD Board was entitled to sovereign immunity.
           The district court analyzed whether the KISD Board could be held
   liable vicariously for the acts of the individual Defendants-Appellees under
   Monell. That court examined the first and second prongs of Monell, looking
   for “facts that sufficiently connect the policy maker—here, the Board of

           72
               Hicks-Fields v. Harris Cnty., 860 F.3d 803, 808 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Peterson
   v. City of Fort Worth, 588 F.3d 838, 847 (5th Cir. 2009)).
           73
                Groden v. City of Dallas, Texas, 826 F.3d 280, 282 (5th Cir. 2016).
           74
                Id.
           75
              City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 124 (1988) (explaining that “whether
   a particular official has ‘final policymaking authority’ is a question of state law”) (internal
   citation omitted).

                                                  19
Case: 21-20625        Document: 00516696973         Page: 20   Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                         21-20625

   Trustees—to the allegedly unconstitutional policy,” and concluded that
   McClelland had not pleaded facts connecting the KISD Board to the alleged
   violations of his First Amendment rights. Citing Longoria, the district court
   explained that McClelland did not plead facts demonstrating that the KISD
   Board had delegated policymaking authority to the individual Defendants-
   Appellees, who were, at best, “decisionmakers.” The court explained that
   McClelland’s allegations “fail to meet the requirement that Defendants
   themselves exercise policymaking authority.”
          The district court correctly concluded that the KISD Board cannot be
   held liable vicariously for the individual Defendants-Appellees’ actions.
   Monell instructs district courts to examine whether the policymaker either
   adopted an injury-causing policy or delegated the authority to adopt such a
   policy.76 The policy at issue here is the ACC, a copy of which was attached
   to McClelland’s complaint. McClelland did not allege facts demonstrating
   that the KISD Board had ratified the ACC, and the ACC itself does not
   indicate that it was ratified by the Board. In fact, the ACC appears to
   distinguish itself from “the board-approved Discipline Management Plan and
   Student Code of Conduct.” McClelland has also failed to show that KISD’s
   signature on its October 4, 2019 announcement constituted ratification or
   delegation. That announcement simply stated that a student would face
   consequences pursuant to the ACC and the Katy ISD Discipline
   Management Student Code of Conduct. McClelland did not allege any other
   facts that show the KISD Board had delegated policymaking authority to the
   individual Defendants-Appellees in connection with the disciplinary action.
   Therefore, McClelland has not shown that the KISD Board promulgated a
   policy that caused injury, so the KISD Board cannot be held liable for
   violations of McClelland’s free speech under Monell.

         76
              Groden, 826 F.3d at 286.

                                           20
Case: 21-20625          Document: 00516696973             Page: 21        Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                              21-20625

           B.         McClelland’s constitutional overbreadth claim
           “A regulation is constitutionally overbroad if it (1) prohibits a
   substantial amount of constitutionally-protected freedoms, when judged in
   relation to the regulation’s ‘plainly legitimate sweep’ . . . and (2) is not
   susceptible to a limiting construction that avoids constitutional problems.”77
   The overbreadth doctrine recognizes that “a broadly-written statute may
   have such a deterrent effect on free expression that it should be subject to a
   facial challenge even by a party whose own conduct may be unprotected.”78
   In other words, that doctrine “enables a plaintiff to challenge a statute where
   it infringes on third parties who are not parties to the action.”79 However, an
   overbreadth claim is “not permitted where a party raises only situations that
   are essentially coterminous with their own conduct.”80
           McClelland asserts that particular provisions of the ACC are
   overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. McClelland points out that
   the ACC requires student athletes “to display/model behaviors associated
   with positive leaders both in the school and in the community” and “exhibit
   good citizenship at all times.” Citing Mahanoy, McClelland takes issue with
   the fact that these provisions pertain to both on- and off-campus conduct.
   McClelland alleges that another student-athlete could find himself in the
   same disciplinary situation, “even if that student-athlete engaged in other
   activities (i.e. not using a racially-charged term).” McClelland concludes that

           77
               Chalifoux v. New Caney Indep. Sch. Dist., 976 F. Supp. 659, 669 (S.D. Tex. 1997)
   (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615 (1973); Board of Airport Comm’rs v. Jews
   for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569, 574 (1987)).
           78
             Int’l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness of New Orleans, Inc. v. City of Baton Rouge, 876
   F.2d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1989); see also Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 612 (explaining that the
   overbreadth doctrine prohibits the government from banning unprotected speech if a
   substantial amount of protected speech would be chilled in the process).
           79
                Chalifoux, 976 F. Supp. at 669.
           80
              Seals v. McBee, 898 F.3d 587, 599 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted).

                                                  21
Case: 21-20625         Document: 00516696973               Page: 22       Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                              21-20625

   “the possibility and potential for wide-sweeping and heavy-handed
   regulation of student-athlete’s speech outside the school doors is
   distressingly obvious.”
          The district court dismissed McClelland’s overbreadth claim,
   concluding that his allegations only “contain[] a general statement of the law
   on overbreadth challenges, untethered to the well-pleaded facts that could
   survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” The district court stressed that McClelland
   failed to show that the rights of third parties would be threatened in situations
   that are different from his own.
          The district court correctly analyzed McClelland’s overbreadth claim
   and did not err in dismissing it. The Supreme Court has instructed that a
   plaintiff who asserts an overbreadth claim must show that a challenged policy
   prohibits a “broad range of protected conduct,” and that there must be “a
   realistic danger that the [policy] itself will significantly compromise
   recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the Court.”81
   McClelland has only shown that his own conduct (which is arguably
   unprotected) is prohibited by the ACC. Additionally, his second amended
   complaint is devoid of facts demonstrating that the ACC is so overreaching
   that it will infringe on other student-athletes’ free speech rights. His
   complaint only seeks a declaration that the ACC is “overbroad and
   constitute[s] viewpoint discrimination.” The district court did not err in
   dismissing McClelland’s overbreadth claim.
          C.         McClelland’s void-for-vagueness claim
          “A law is unconstitutionally vague if it (1) fails to provide those
   targeted by the statute a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is
   prohibited, or (2) is so indefinite that it allows arbitrary and discriminatory

          81
               City of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 796, 801 (1984).

                                                 22
Case: 21-20625             Document: 00516696973              Page: 23       Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                                 21-20625

   enforcement.”82 This standard is heightened in the context of education,
   “[g]iven the school’s need to be able to impose disciplinary sanctions for a
   wide range of unanticipated conduct disruptive of the educational
   process.”83 A regulation is void for vagueness when it is so unclear that
   people “of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and
   differ as to its application.”84 This circuit’s precedent instructs that a facial
   challenge may only be sustained “if the enactment is impermissibly vague in
   all of its applications.”85 Since a void-for-vagueness challenge is ultimately a
   due-process claim,86 a plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of a
   constitutionally-protected property or liberty interest.87
              McClelland asserts that the ACC is void for vagueness because
   particular provisions “were unduly and unconstitutionally vague.” He
   specifically alleges that the provisions requiring student-athletes to “conduct
   [themselves] as gentlemen and ladies at all times”; “exhibit good citizenship
   at all times”; and “display/model behaviors associated with positive leaders
   both in the school and in the community” are unconstitutional. McClelland
   asserts that the district court erred by not analyzing the merits of vagueness,
   instead deciding this question on the existence of a protected property
   interest.
              The district court did not reach either the merits of vagueness or
   whether a facial challenge to the ACC could be sustained. Instead, that court

              82
            A.M ex rel. McAllum v. Cash, 585 F.3d 214, 224–25 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting
   Women's Med. Ctr. of N.W. Houston v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 421 (2001)).
              83
                   Fraser, 478 U.S. at 676.
              84
                   Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926).
              85
            Home Depot, Inc. v. Guste, 773 F.2d 616, 627 (5th Cir. 1985) (quoting Vill. of
   Hoffman Ests. v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489, 495 (1982)).
              86
                   Cash, 585 F.3d at 225.
              87
                   Longoria, 942 F.3d at 270 (citing City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 58
   (1999)).

                                                     23
Case: 21-20625         Document: 00516696973               Page: 24       Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                              21-20625

   analyzed whether McClelland had properly alleged the deprivation of
   protected property or liberty interests as a result of the ACC. The district
   court referenced Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District, which
   held that vagueness may only be invoked in the educational context when
   students “faced a potential deprivation of their property interests in
   attending a public school.”88 The district court concluded that McClelland
   had failed to state a claim for vagueness since “[n]either participation in
   football nor team captainship constitutes a property or liberty right of which
   Plaintiff was deprived.”
          The district court correctly analyzed McClelland’s void-for-
   vagueness claim and did not err in dismissing it. It is well settled, in the
   educational context, that a plaintiff must allege a protected property interest.
   McClelland’s second amended complaint is devoid of any such allegations.
   And, even if he had alleged lack of participation on the football team or team
   captainship in connection with vagueness, he still would not prevail. This
   court has held that “[a] student’s interest in participating in a single year of
   interscholastic athletics amounts to a mere expectation rather than a
   constitutionally protected claim of entitlement.”89
          D.         McClelland’s procedural and substantive due process
                     claims
          The Fourteenth Amendment provides that state actors may not
   deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of
   law.”90 “The first inquiry in every due process challenge—whether
   procedural or substantive—is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a
   protected interest in property or liberty.”91 Moreover, “[t]o have a property

          88
               976 F. Supp. at 668.
          89
               Walsh v. La. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 616 F.2d 152, 159 (5th Cir. 1980).
          90
               U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV.
          91
               Edionwe v. Bailey, 860 F.3d 287, 292 (5th Cir. 2017).

                                                 24
Case: 21-20625         Document: 00516696973                Page: 25        Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                               21-20625

   interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need
   or desire for it . . . [He] must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement
   to it.”92
          In his second amended complaint, McClelland alleged that KISD,
   Gregorski, Hull, and Graham violated his due process rights throughout the
   marijuana-related disciplinary process and his resulting placement in the
   DAEP. He now appeals the district court’s dismissal only as to KISD.
   McClelland asserts that KISD violated his due process rights by imposing
   discipline “without establishing the three required elements of the charged
   statute: usable quantity, intent to possess, and that the substance was
   properly tested, prior to imposing discipline, to be certain that the substance
   was legally marijuana as opposed to hemp.” McClelland claims that KISD’s
   “wrongful conviction” resulted in the destruction of his liberty interests. He
   also alleges that his due process rights were violated when KISD reinstated
   the discipline that it had imposed before he attempted to transfer schools.
   McClelland takes issue with the fact that the district court did not analyze
   the merits of his due process claims, instead basing its opinion on whether
   McClelland had alleged a deprivation of protected interests.
          We disagree with McClelland. The district court first analyzed
   whether he had sufficiently alleged deprivation of his property and liberty
   interests. In doing so, the court looked to Nevares v. San Marcos Consolidated
   Independent School District, in which this circuit held that a student’s
   placement in an alternative education program violated no protected
   property interest.93 The district court also relied on this circuit’s opinion in
   Doe v. Silsbee Independent School District, which held that students “do not
   possess a constitutionally protected interest in their participation in

          92
               Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972).
          93
               111 F.3d 25, 26–27 (5th Cir. 1997).

                                                  25
Case: 21-20625         Document: 00516696973                Page: 26        Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                              21-20625

   extracurricular activities.”94 The district court concluded that this circuit’s
   well-settled precedent instructed against finding any violation of a protected
   property or liberty interest on the basis of McClelland’s placement in DAEP
   or his suspension from the football team.
           The district court did not err in dismissing McClelland’s substantive
   and procedural due process claims because McClelland did not allege the
   deprivation of his property or liberty interests. As noted above, this circuit
   has held that students do not have a protected property or liberty interest in
   participating in extracurricular activities.95 We have also held that students
   are not deprived of a protected property or liberty interest when they are
   placed in alternative education programs, such as the DAEP.96 McClelland
   thus failed to allege the deprivation of a protected property or liberty interest,
   so the district court did not need to reach the merits of his procedural or
   substantive due process claims.
                                        V. CONCLUSION
           We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of McClelland’s (1) 42
   U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendants-Appellees on the basis of qualified
   and sovereign immunity; (2) overbreadth and void-for-vagueness claims; and
   (3) substantive and procedural due process claims.

           94
             402 F. App’x 852, 854 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting NCAA v. Yeo, 171 S.W.3d 863,
   865 (Tex. 2005)).
           95
                Id.
           96
             Nevares, 111 F.3d at 26-27; see also Harris ex rel. Harris v. Pontotoc Cnty. Sch. Dist.,
   635 F.3d 685, 690 (5th Cir. 2011) (“A student’s transfer to an alternate education program
   does not deny access to public education and therefore does not violate a Fourteenth
   Amendment interest.”).

                                                  26