Greg Davis v. Houston County, AL Bd. of Education, No. 08-11172 (11th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 08-11172 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Aug. 27, 2008 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 06-00953-CV-1-MEF GREG DAVIS, as next friend and natural guardian of J.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama _________________________ (August 27, 2008) Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and HILL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Greg Davis sued the Houston County, Alabama Board of Education, on behalf of his son, Joshua Davis, who was expelled by it for having struck two of his football coaches after he was removed from a football game. Davis claims that the defendant is liable to his son under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 for violating his son s right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He claims that the defendant did not expel two similarly situated students and, therefore, violated his son s right under the equal protection clause to be free from intentional discrimination at the hands of government officials. See Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per curiam); Campbell v. Rainbow City, 434 F.3d 1306, 1313-14 (11 th Cir. 2006). The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant board of education. We review this grant de novo. Arrington v. Helms, 438 F.3d 1336, 1341 (11 th Cir. 2006). In order for another student to be similarly situated to Joshua Davis, plaintiff must show that the students are prima facie identical in all relevant respects. Campbell, 434 F.3d at 1314. Two individuals are similarly situated if the quantity and quality of the comparator s misconduct is nearly identical to the individual raising the discrimination claim. Maniccia v. Brown, 171 F.3d 1364, 1368 (11 th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff has offered two students whom he claims are similarly situated to 2 Joshua Davis, but who were not expelled. The first student, however, was involved in horseplay by the sole victim s own testimony, who urged that he be talked to but not disciplined. The second proposed comparator was a sixth grade student who did not strike anyone. We conclude that neither of these proposed comparators is similarly situated to Joshua Davis under the law of this circuit. See Maniccia, 171 F.3d at 1368 (comparators who did not do what the plaintiff did are not similar); Hammock ex rel. Hammock v. Keys, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1232 (S.D. Ala. 2000) (equal protection does not require that elementary and high school students be treated identically in school discipline cases). Accordingly, plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of intentional discrimination against his son under the Fourteenth Amendment, and the judgment of the district court is due to be AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
