McLemore v. Bogalusa City School District

• Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
• Decided: October 3, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01407
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IY BY HER PARENT BRITTANY CIVIL ACTION MCLEMORE NO. 24-1407 VERSUS SECTION M (5) BOGALUSA CITY DISTRICT SCHOOLS, et al. ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by defendants Bogalusa City District Schools, the Bogalusa City School Board (the “School Board”), Eddie Walker, Byron Hurst, and Karla McGehee (collectively, “Defendants”).1 Defendants argue that plaintiff IY by her parent Brittany McLemore (“Plaintiff”) fails to state a claim under Title IX because (1) the allegations in the complaint do not establish “sexual harassment” for Title IX purposes; (2) Plaintiff has not alleged that the purported harassment deprived her of, or interfered with her, educational opportunities; (3) the allegations in the complaint fail to show that the School Board acted with deliberate indifference; (4) Plaintiff does not state a viable remedy under Title IX; (5) Plaintiff fails to state a Title IX claim against the individual defendants, Walker, Hurst, and McGhee, because they are not Title IX grant recipients; (6) Plaintiff’s bare conclusory allegations of claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 merely recycle the purported Title IX claims; and (7) “Bogalusa City District Schools” is not a juridical entity capable of being sued under Louisiana law.2

1 R. Doc. 24. 2 R. Doc. 24-1. The motion is set for submission on October 3, 2024.3 Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date, making the deadline in this instance September 25, 2024. As of today (the noticed submission date), Plaintiff, who is not represented by counsel, has not filed an opposition to the motion. Although the Court construes

pro se filing liberally, pro se parties are still required to “abide by the rules that govern the federal courts.” EEOC v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir. 2014); see also Jones v. FJC Sec. Servs., Inc., 612 F. App’x 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2015) (“Nonetheless, we expect litigants to meet court deadlines and observe the rules of civil procedure.”). Accordingly, because the motion is unopposed and appears to have merit for the reasons stated in Defendants’ memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss,4 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (R. Doc. 24) is GRANTED, and plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3rd day of October, 2024.

________________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 R. Doc. 24-4. 4 R. Doc. 24-1.