Thomas v. Ursuline Academy et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DIETRICH THOMAS,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-187

URSULINE ACADEMY, ET AL.,
Defendants

SECTION: “E”(5)

ORDER AND REASONS 1
Before the Court is the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 2 For the reasons that
follow, the motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
On December 10, 2015, Plaintiff H.T. filed suit in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, against Defendants Ursuline Academy of New
Orleans, Karen McNay, Alice Bairnsfather, Tess Belt, Jan Lancaster, and Jack Truxillo. 3
H.T.’s state-court petition alleges, inter alia, violations of the Equal Educational
Opportunities Act and various federal civil rights statutes. 4 Defendants removed the
action to federal court on January 7, 2016, and filed a motion to dismiss on February 3,
2016. 5 The Court denied the Defendants’ motion on February 23, 2016, affording H.T. the
opportunity to file an amended complaint to better marshal her claims. 6 H.T. filed an
amended complaint on March 22, 2016, 7 after which the Defendants again filed a motion
to dismiss, 8 which the Court now considers.
Although the caption of this proceeding reflects the plaintiff is Dietrich Thomas, she appears only as the
purported representative of H.T.
2 R. Doc. 15.
3 See R. Doc. 1-3.
4 Id.
5 R. Docs. 1, 8.
6 R. Doc. 12.
7 R. Doc. 14.
8 R. Doc. 15.
1

1

LAW AND ANALYSIS
This action involves the claims of H.T., a former student at Ursuline Academy of
New Orleans, for violations of certain federal civil rights statutes and the Equal
Educational Opportunities Act, among others. Dietrich Thomas, who is not a licensed
attorney, purports to represent H.T., her minor child, in this action. Defendants argue the
Court must dismiss the amended complaint because Thomas is not a licensed attorney
and is unable to represent her daughter in federal court. 9
Although the Fifth Circuit has not expressly addressed whether a parent may
represent his or her child in federal court in a lawsuit alleging violations of the Equal
Educational Opportunities Act and other federal civil rights statutes, the Fifth Circuit “has
endorsed the principle that a ‘non-attorney parent cannot appear . . . on behalf of a minor
child.’” 10 In Harris v. Apfel, the Fifth Circuit pronounced a limited exception to this rule,
finding that non-attorney parents may represent their minor children in the context of
Social Security appeals. 11 The Harris court distinguished Social Security appeals, “which
essentially involve a limited review of the administrative record, from other types of cases
that ‘involve . . . subjective criteria and [a] range of fact-finding.’” 12 “Such a distinction
has been interpreted by at least one other district court within the Fifth Circuit ‘as
indicating that a non-attorney’s representation of a child was prohibited for other types
of claims.’” 13 Furthermore, the Court’s research has not uncovered any other decisions by

R. Doc. 15-1 at 3.
K.F. ex rel. Ruffin v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., No. H-06-1306, 2006 WL 2434478, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Aug.
22, 2006) (quoting Harris v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 413, 415 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Devine v. Indian River Cnty.
Sch. Bd., 121 F.3d 576 (11th Cir. 1997); Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 1997); OseiAfriyie
v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d 876 (3d Cir. 1991); Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.3d 153 (10th Cir. 1986))).
11 Harris, 209 F.3d at 417.
12 Wells v. Johnson, No. 14-755-SDD-SCR, 2015 WL 5138279, at *2 (M.D. La. Aug. 28, 2015) (quoting
Harris, 209 F.3d at 416).
13 Id. (quoting K.F. ex rel. Ruffin v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., No. H-06-1306, 2006 WL 2434478, at *1
(S.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2006) (holding that a parent cannot bring IDEA, § 504, or § 1983 claims on behalf of
minor child).
9

10

2

courts in this circuit in which a non-attorney parent was permitted to represent his or her
minor child in federal proceedings.
As stated above, H.T.’s amended complaint asserts causes of action for federal civil
rights violations and violations of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, as well as
others. Because this matter is not a Social Security appeal, in which Dietrich Thomas
would be permitted to represent H.T. under the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Harris, but
instead is a civil action involving “subjective criteria and [a] range of fact-finding,” 14 the
Court finds that Thomas may not represent H.T. in this matter. As a result, the
Defendants’ motion to dismiss must be granted and H.T.’s claims dismissed.
CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this
matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 15
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of May, 2016.
_______ _____________ __________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 Wells v. Johnson, No. 14-755-SDD-SCR, 2015 WL 5138279, at *2 (M.D. La. Aug. 28, 2015) (quoting
Harris, 209 F.3d at 416).
15 Because the Court has granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing this matter without
prejudice, Plaintiff’s pending motion for leave to file an amended complaint (R. Doc. 16) and motion to
compel (R. Doc. 17) are also DISMISSED.

3