Doe et al v. Alvin Independent School District et al

Filing 31

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 5 Motion to Dismiss - the Motion is GRANTED as to Pltfs § 1983 failure to protect claim based upon the existence of a special relationship; the Pltfs Title IX claims; and the Pltfs neglige nce claim against Alvin Independent School District and those claims are hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to being reasserted if discovery discloses evidence of the claims viability. It is further ORDERED that the Dfts Motion is DENIED as to Plai ntiffs § 1983 failure to protect claim based upon the existence of a state created danger pending the completion of adequate discovery and DENIED as to Pltfs § 1983 gender discrimination claim since the allowed discovery may also be relevant to the proper disposition of this claim.(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
JANE DOE, Individually and As Next
Friend of LISA DOE,
and LISA DOE, Individually
V.
ALVIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT, ET AL.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. G-11-422

OPINION AND ORDER
This case is now before the Court with the consent of the Parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(c).
On February 3, 2012, this Court held a Hearing with counsel of record on the Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss (Instrument no. 5). Having considered the Motion, the Parties’ submissions and
arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues this brief Opinion and Order.
For the reasons expressed by the Court during the Hearing, it is ORDERED that the
Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED as to the Plaintiffs’ § 1983 failure to protect claim based upon
the existence of a special relationship; the Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims; and the Plaintiffs’ negligence
claim against Alvin Independent School District and those claims are hereby DISMISSED, without
prejudice to being reasserted if discovery discloses evidence of the claims’ viability.
It is further ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ § 1983
failure to protect claim based upon the existence of a “state created danger” pending the completion
of adequate discovery and DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 gender discrimination claim since the
allowed discovery may also be relevant to the proper disposition of this claim.
DONE at Galveston, Texas, this

29th

day of February, 2012.