Document Info

DocketNumber: 21-40519

Filed Date: 3/25/2022

Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/25/2022

  • Case: 21-40519     Document: 00516253875         Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/25/2022
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                             United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    March 25, 2022
    No. 21-40519
    Summary Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Chase Yarbrough,
    Plaintiff—Appellant,
    versus
    Sante Fe Independent School District; Doctor Leigh
    Wall; Mark Kanipes; Richard Davis; Jess Golightly;
    Matthew Bentley; Christopher Cavness; Raymond Buse;
    Marie Griffin; Taylor Wulf,
    Defendants—Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:20-CV-322
    Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
    Gregg Costa, Circuit Judge:*
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-40519      Document: 00516253875           Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/25/2022
    No. 21-40519
    A high-school student suffered a concussion during football practice.
    The student brought a constitutional claim against the school district and
    several of its officials for failing to protect him from bodily harm. The district
    court dismissed the suit, finding no substantive due process claim. We
    AFFIRM.
    I
    Chase Yarbrough played football for Santa Fe High School. At
    practice one day, the coaching staff instructed Yarbrough and his teammates
    to perform a drill in which half the players tried to prevent the others from
    crossing the line of scrimmage. Yarbrough was matched against an older and
    substantially larger student. The two players repeatedly collided as the
    coaching staff instructed them to run the drill again and again “and to hit
    harder, harder, harder.”
    After practice, Yarbrough began to experience a severe headache. He
    contacted his mother, who told him to go to the school nurse. The nurse sent
    Yarbrough to the football trainer, who instructed Yarbrough to sit out
    afternoon practice. Yarbrough followed that instruction, but his headache
    persisted. The next day, the trainer directed Yarbrough to seek medical
    treatment.
    A day later, Yarbrough went to a sports medicine clinic, where he was
    diagnosed with a concussion and cervical sprain.           The doctor advised
    Yarbrough that he had likely suffered an initial injury at an earlier practice
    and had been playing football with a concussion for a few weeks.
    After his diagnosis, Yarbrough continued to experience concussion-
    related symptoms. As a result, Yarbrough filed this suit against the Santa Fe
    Independent School District and various members of its athletics staff.
    Yarbrough alleged that the defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment
    right to bodily integrity by subjecting him to dangerous football drills. The
    2
    Case: 21-40519       Document: 00516253875          Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/25/2022
    No. 21-40519
    defendants moved to dismiss Yarbrough’s claims, arguing first and foremost
    that Yarbrough had failed to allege a colorable constitutional violation. The
    district court agreed and dismissed Yarbrough’s claims with prejudice.
    II
    To state a claim for violation of his liberty interest in bodily integrity,
    Yarbrough must show either (1) that the constitutional violation was caused
    by a state actor or (2) that the defendants had a constitutional duty to protect
    him from a nonstate actor. See Doe ex rel. Magee v. Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist.
    ex rel. Keys, 
    675 F.3d 849
    , 855 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Yarbrough cannot
    succeed under the first theory because he was injured by his teammate, a
    nonstate actor.    The question then is whether the defendants had a
    constitutional duty to protect Yarbrough from his teammate.
    Generally, the government is not obligated to protect its citizens from
    violence by third parties. See DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc.
    Servs., 
    489 U.S. 189
    , 199–200 (1989). Some of our sister circuits have
    recognized an exception to the rule, under which “a state may be liable for
    private violence if it created or exacerbated the danger.” Bustos v. Martini
    Club Inc., 
    599 F.3d 458
    , 466 (5th Cir. 2010). Yarbrough asks us to apply that
    exception here. We have “repeatedly declined to recognize the state-created
    danger doctrine in this circuit.” Joiner v. United States, 
    955 F.3d 399
    , 407
    (5th Cir. 2020); see also Cook v. Hopkins, 795 F. App’x 906, 914 (5th Cir.
    2019); Estate of C.A. v. Castro, 547 F. App’x 621, 627–28 (5th Cir. 2013); Doe,
    
    675 F.3d at 866
    ; Beltran v. City of El Paso, 
    367 F.3d 299
    , 307 (5th Cir. 2004).
    Once again, we need not decide the question because even if we were to
    recognize the doctrine, it would not apply to this case.
    To prove a state-created danger, Yarbrough would have to show that
    the defendants used their authority to place him in immediate danger and did
    so with “deliberate indifference” to his plight. See Doe, 
    675 F.3d at 865
    ; see
    3
    Case: 21-40519        Document: 00516253875          Page: 4    Date Filed: 03/25/2022
    No. 21-40519
    also Lester v. City of College Station, 103 F. App’x 814, 815 (5th Cir. 2004)
    (“[L]iability exists only if the state actor is aware of an immediate danger
    facing a known victim.”). Football is dangerous. But football does not
    present such an immediate or specific danger to the players that schools and
    coaches can be held liable for any injuries that result. Indeed, courts have
    frequently rejected civil-rights claims based on football injuries—some of
    which involved more glaring and unreasonable dangers than those at bar. See
    e.g., Davis v. Carter, 
    555 F.3d 979
    , 984 (11th Cir. 2009) (finding no liability
    for the death of a player who was refused water during a strenuous football
    practice); Myers v. Troup Indep. Sch. Dist., 
    895 F. Supp. 127
    , 130 (E.D. Tex.
    1995) (same for a player who suffered nerve and muscle damage after he was
    ordered back onto the field moments after being knocked unconscious); see
    also Lesher v. Zimmerman, 822 F. App’x 116, 118 (3d Cir. 2020) (finding no
    liability when softball practice left plaintiff with a fractured jaw and four lost
    teeth).
    Even if Yarbrough could show that football is a qualifying danger, his
    claim would still fail because the defendants did not act with deliberate
    indifference by allowing Yarbrough to participate. See Doe, 
    675 F.3d at 865
    .
    “To act with deliberate indifference, a state actor must know of and disregard
    an excessive risk to the victim's health or safety.” McClendon v. City of
    Columbia, 
    305 F.3d 314
    , 326 n.8 (5th Cir. 2002) (cleaned up). Yarbrough
    does not allege that his coaches knew he was concussed and forced him to
    play anyway. Nor does he allege that he suffered any obvious injury during
    football practice, which should have led coaches to take him off the field.
    Rather, Yarbrough’s headaches started after practice concluded, and days
    after he was initially injured. And, once school officials knew that Yarbrough
    was injured, they immediately instructed him to avoid football until he could
    consult a doctor. Yarbrough has thus failed to plead facts showing that the
    defendants consciously disregarded an immediate threat to his safety.
    4
    Case: 21-40519      Document: 00516253875           Page: 5   Date Filed: 03/25/2022
    No. 21-40519
    Without such allegations, Yarbrough’s claim could not succeed even if we
    were to embrace the state-created danger theory.
    There is growing debate in this country about the dangers of football.
    The problem of concussions has reached the court system via tort suits. See,
    e.g., In re: NFL Players’ Concussion Injury Litig., 
    821 F.3d 410
     (3d Cir. 2016).
    But we do not see a role for the Constitution in the weighing of risks and
    benefits that participants in America’s most popular sport must make.
    ***
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    5