Kirkpatrick v. School Bd Lafayette Prsh ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30481 Document: 00516698276 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 3, 2023
No. 22-30481
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
Brittany A. Kirkpatrick, Individually and on behalf of
KG; Quentin Paul Greene, Individually and on behalf of
KG,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
School Board of Lafayette Parish; Youngsville Middle
School; Anna Ellington, on behalf of her minor child
GE,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:20-CV-1612
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-30481 Document: 00516698276 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2023
No. 22-30481
Plaintiffs in this case allege that G.E, a seventh-grade student at
Youngsville Middle School, made inappropriate comments to and touched
the thigh of K.G., a fellow seventh grader. After an investigation, the School
Board briefly suspended G.E. and ordered him to stay away from K.G. Later,
in response to a complaint from K.G.’s parents, the school also changed
K.G.’s schedule so that she would no longer share a class with G.E. The only
subsequent interaction that the two students had was occasionally seeing
each other in the halls. Plaintiffs allege that G.E. would smile at K.G. and
laugh as he passed.
K.G.’s parents brought a Title IX case for student-on-student
harassment against Youngsville Middle School, the School Board of
Lafayette Parish, and G.E.’s mother, Anna Ellington. The district court
granted summary judgment to the defendants on the grounds that the alleged
harassment was not “severe and pervasive” and that the school was not
“deliberately indifferent” to the harassment. See Sanches v. Carrollton-
Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 647 F.3d 156, 165 (5th Cir. 2011). After
dismissing all federal law claims on this basis, the district court declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims
against Ellington.
After reviewing the arguments of both parties and the record, this
court agrees that the plaintiffs failed to state a Title IX claim. With no federal
claims left to consider, the district court did not abuse its discretion by
declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See
St. Germain v. Howard, 556 F.3d 261, 263–64 (5th Cir. 2009).
Therefore, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. We find
no reversible error of law or fact and affirm essentially for the reasons stated
in the memorandum ruling of the district court.
2