Court Opinion

ID: 9959110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 18:00:53.433726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:28.079936
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50369         Document: 74-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/10/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                      United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit
                                 ____________                                     FILED
                                                                              April 10, 2024
                                   No. 23-50369
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                 ____________
                                                                                  Clerk

Chloe Murphy,

                                                                Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                        versus

Northside Independent School District,

                                           Defendant—Appellee.
                 ______________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 5:22-CV-123
                 ______________________________

Before Jones, Dennis, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
        Plaintiff Chloe Murphy sued Northside Independent School District
for sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,
Pub. L. 92-318, 86 Stat. 373, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-88. She further claims the
School District violated her constitutional right to due process. The basis of
her lawsuit is severe and permanent injuries sustained after her cheerleading

        _____________________
       *
           Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 23-50369           Document: 74-1          Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/10/2024

                                      No. 23-50369

coach forced the cheerleading team to complete 150-200 “frog jumps” after
she was late to practice.1          She developed rhabdomyolysis, a “serious
syndrome due to direct or indirect muscle injury.” She contends that her
injuries were the result of the inequitable funding practices and inadequate
training at the school. The district court dismissed her suit for failure to state
a claim. We AFFIRM.
                                            I
       An order granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim is reviewed de novo. In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191,
205 (5th Cir. 2007). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the
plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955,
1974 (2007).
                                            II
       When a plaintiff alleges that a school has an official policy of
intentional discrimination on the basis of sex, the “proper test” under Title
IX is whether the school “intended to treat women differently on the basis of
their sex.” Pederson v. La. State Univ., 213 F.3d 858, 882 (5th Cir. 2000).
       The Plaintiff alleged no facts suggesting that the School District
“intended to treat women differently on the basis of their sex.” See id. The
coach’s punishment of the cheerleading team was not part of a “facially
       _____________________
       1
           Murphy gives the following instructions on how to perform “frog jumps”:
       Sit in a deep squat position with your legs slightly wider than a shoulder-
       width apart. . . . Then on the exhale jump forward and up into the air,
       trying to leap as high as you can. While you are in the air, there should be
       triple extension – three joins [sic] (hips, knees, and ankles) are to be
       involved in the movement. Lightly land on your feet back to the starting
       position, inhale as you squat back.

                                            2
Case: 23-50369        Document: 74-1        Page: 3     Date Filed: 04/10/2024

                                  No. 23-50369

discriminatory” policy at the school. See Arceneaux v. Assumption Par. Sch.
Bd., 733 F. App’x 175, 179 (5th Cir. 2018). Indeed, Murphy alleges that such
punishment violated the School District’s express policy. As stated in her
Complaint, under School Board policies, neither “physical education staff[]
nor any other school or community personnel . . . are permitted to use
physical activity or physical education class or athletic practices as a form of
punishment.” Although she contends that the School District funds boys’
and girls’ sports differently, she fails to tie this allegedly inequitable funding
to the harm she suffered at cheerleading practice in anything other than a
speculative and conclusory manner. Consequently, the Plaintiff has failed to
state a claim for intentional discrimination under Title IX.
       The Plaintiff devotes a large portion of her brief to regulations
promulgated by the Department of Education regulating college sports. See
34 C.F.R. § 106.41; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; a Policy
Interpretation; Title IX and Intercollegiate Athletics, 44 Fed. Reg. 71,413.
Even if the cited regulations concern intentional discrimination rather than
disparate impact discrimination, the Plaintiff’s claim fails, because she has
not alleged “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S. Ct. at 1974.
       As for the Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim, to hold the School District liable
under that statute, she “must allege sufficient factual content to permit the
reasonable inference (1) that a constitutional violation occurred and (2) that
an ‘official policy’ attributable to the school district’s policymakers (3) ‘was
the moving force’ behind it.” Littell v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 894 F.3d 616,
622-23 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Doe ex rel. Magee v. Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist.
ex rel. Keys, 675 F.3d 849, 854, 865-66 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc)).
       The Plaintiff’s claim fails at step one of the municipal liability analysis,
because she has not pleaded “that a constitutional violation occurred.”

                                        3
 Case: 23-50369           Document: 74-1         Page: 4      Date Filed: 04/10/2024

                                       No. 23-50369

Littell, 894 F.3d at 623. The Plaintiff’s argument is foreclosed by this court’s
binding precedent in Moore v. Willis Independent School District, 233 F.3d 871,
875 (5th Cir. 2000). In that case, a gym teacher who had observed a fourteen-
year-old male student “talking to a classmate during roll call” ordered the
student to do 100 “ups and downs” as punishment.2 Id. at 873. In the
following days, the student was diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis and renal
failure. Id. This court stated that the Fifth Circuit has “held consistently
that, as long as the state provides an adequate remedy, a public school student
cannot state a claim for denial of substantive due process through excessive
corporal punishment, whether it be against the school system,
administrators, or the employee who is alleged to have inflicted the damage.”
Id. at 874.       Moore controls this case.         The imposition of exercise as
punishment is not a constitutional violation. See id.
        Because the Plaintiff has failed to plead either a Title IX or a
constitutional cause of action, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

        _____________________
        2
            The term “ups and downs” is defined as follows:
        To perform an up-down the student starts in the standing position, then
        squats until he can place his hands flat on the floor. When the hands have
        been placed on the floor the legs are then extended fully to the rear while
        the arms remain straight at the elbows with the torso elevated above the
        floor. The legs are then drawn back under the torso into a squatting
        position, and the exercise is completed by returning to a standing position.
Moore, 233 F.3d at 873 n.3.

                                             4