Jasmine Shepard v. Cleveland School District, et a ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • Case: 19-60907     Document: 00515579495         Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/25/2020
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                                United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    September 25, 2020
    No. 19-60907
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Summary Calendar                               Clerk
    Jasmine Shepard,
    Plaintiff—Appellant,
    versus
    Cleveland School District; Steven Craddock, in his
    individual capacity; Doctor Jacqueline Thigpen, in her
    individual and official capacity,
    Defendants—Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 4:17-CV-91
    Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Cleveland    High   School’s    2016   graduating     class     had       two
    valedictorians—Jasmine Shepard, who is black, and H.B., who is white.
    Unwilling to share the title of valedictorian, Shepard filed a Section 1983
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60907       Document: 00515579495           Page: 2     Date Filed: 09/25/2020
    No. 19-60907
    complaint against Cleveland School District, Superintendent Jacqueline
    Thigpen (in her individual and official capacity), and Principal Steven
    Craddock (in his individual and official capacity), alleging equal protection
    and due process violations. Her claims were premised on allegations that the
    school provided H.B. opportunities for online schooling that Shepard never
    received, thereby boosting H.B.’s “point” total used to assess class honors;
    the school gave H.B. more “points” for the courses she took than was
    allowed by the school district’s policies and procedures; and the school
    district miscalculated Shepard’s GPA by double-counting her grade in a
    particular course. In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the district court
    granted summary judgment to the defendants. We find no reversible error of
    fact or law in that decision.
    Shepard contends that the district court’s decision is nonetheless
    inadequate because it fails to address her due process claim. 1 She ignores that
    the district court granted summary judgment to Thigpen and Craddock
    because they had insufficient involvement in the challenged decisions to
    make them liable under Section 1983.            That reasoning applies to any
    constitutional claims based on the same alleged conduct.               Regardless,
    Shepard’s due process claim is meritless.
    To assert a due process violation, Shepard must identify a life, liberty,
    or property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment before
    identifying the state action resulting in a deprivation of that interest. San
    Jacinto Sav. & Loan v. Kacal, 
    928 F.2d 697
    , 700 (5th Cir. 1991). She fails to
    satisfy this standard. Her briefing is woefully inadequate on this score. More
    to the point, there is no constitutional right to being named sole valedictorian.
    1
    On appeal, Shepard fails to challenge the district court’s grant of summary
    judgment as to Cleveland School District. Thus, the only remaining defendants are
    Thigpen and Craddock.
    2
    Case: 19-60907      Document: 00515579495          Page: 3    Date Filed: 09/25/2020
    No. 19-60907
    Cf. Nevares v. San Marcos Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 
    111 F.3d 25
    , 27 (5th Cir.
    1997) (“[N]o protected property interest is implicated in a school’s denial to
    offer a student a particular curriculum.”); Niles v. Univ. Interscholastic
    League, 
    715 F.2d 1027
    , 1031 (5th Cir. 1983) (no property interest in
    participating in extracurricular activities). While students have a property
    interest in receiving a state-provided public education, Goss v. Lopez, 
    415 U.S. 565
    , 574, 
    95 S. Ct. 729
    , 736 (1975), there is no free-standing right to class
    honors. In order for such a right to exist, Shepard would have to present a
    legitimate claim of entitlement based not on her subjective beliefs or
    perceived needs but on “existing rules or understandings that stem from an
    independent source such as state law—rules or understandings that secure
    certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.”
    Board of Regents v. Roth, 
    408 U.S. 564
    , 577, 
    92 S. Ct. 2701
    , 2709 (1972).
    Cleveland High School’s handbook explicitly contemplates the possibility of
    having multiple valedictorians. It is therefore beyond dispute that Shepard
    does not have a property interest in being named sole valedictorian.
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    3