Sims v. Dallas Independent School District, No. 24-10189 (5th Cir. 2025)

Annotate this Case

Jason and Brandren Sims filed a lawsuit against the Dallas Independent School District (DISD) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after their mother, a special-education instructor, died following an assault by a student. They claimed that DISD was directly liable for her death due to an official policy or custom that led to a constitutional violation.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs appealed the decision, arguing that the district court erred in its dismissal.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish direct liability against DISD under § 1983. Specifically, the court noted that to prove such liability, plaintiffs must show an official policy or custom, knowledge of the policy by a policymaker, and a constitutional violation caused by that policy. The plaintiffs relied on the state-created danger theory of substantive due process to establish a constitutional violation. However, the Fifth Circuit reiterated that neither it nor the Supreme Court has ever adopted this theory. The court declined to recognize the state-created danger theory, citing the Supreme Court's caution against identifying unenumerated rights without a careful and deeply rooted historical basis. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case.

Download PDF

Case: 24-10189 Document: 48-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED May 16, 2025 No. 24-10189 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jason Sims, Individually and as representative of the Estate of Sharla Sims (deceased); Brandren Sims, Plaintiffs—Appellants, versus Dallas Independent School District, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:23-CV-10 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: Jason and Brandren Sims sued the Dallas Independent School District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because their mother, a special-education instructor, tragically passed away after a student assaulted her. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. We affirm. * * * Because of the limits on vicarious liability under § 1983, see Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 477–78 (1986), plaintiffs must establish Case: 24-10189 Document: 48-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2025 No. 24-10189 direct liability against the Dallas Independent School District (“DISD”). To do so, plaintiffs must show “(1) an official policy (or custom), of which (2) a policy maker can be charged with actual or constructive knowledge, and (3) a constitutional violation whose ‘moving force’ is that policy (or custom).” Pineda v. Houston, 291 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 2002). To establish a constitutional violation, plaintiffs rely on the state-created danger theory of substantive due process. That is unavailing. * No precedent of this court or the Supreme Court has ever adopted such a theory of substantive due process. Although a panel of our court in Breen v. Texas A&M University, 485 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2007), purported to do so, that same panel withdrew its opinion just three months later, see Breen v. Texas A&M Univ., 494 F.3d 516 (5th Cir. 2007). Since then, we have clarified that we “ha[ve] never adopted” this theory. Fisher v. Moore, 73 F.4th 367, 369 (5th Cir. 2023). We decline to do so today. As the Supreme Court warned just a few months ago, “[i]dentifying unenumerated rights carries a serious risk of judicial overreach.” Dep’t of State v. Muñoz, 144 S. Ct. 1812, 1821–22 (2024). So courts must “exercise[] the utmost care” before conjuring an unenumerated, substantive right out of the Due Process Clause. Id. at 1822. _____________________ * Although plaintiffs argue they have an alternative “ratification theory” for liability, they are mistaken. Ratification only concerns the first prong of the test for entity liability: Under a ratification theory, “a subordinate’s decision” may count as an official policy if that decision was “approve[d]” by “the authorized policymakers.” City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 127 (1988); see also World Wide St. Preachers Fellowship v. Town of Columbia, 591 F.3d 747, 755 (5th Cir. 2009). So even if plaintiffs can show that DISD ratified the ARD Committee’s decision, plaintiffs would still need to show an underlying constitutional deprivation. The only theory plaintiffs offer for that is the statecreated danger theory. 2 Case: 24-10189 Document: 48-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/16/2025 No. 24-10189 If we were to recognize the state-created danger theory of substantive due process, we would ignore these words of warning. We may not do so. The Supreme Court has announced a two-part test for recognizing substantive due process rights. See ibid. The state-created danger theory of substantive due process flunks both parts of that test. The theory does not rest on a “careful description” of any “fundamental liberty interest.” Ibid. (citation omitted). On the contrary, the theory is open-ended and ill-defined. Nor is there any evidence that such a sweeping right to liberty from state-created dangers is “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Ibid. (citation omitted). So we refuse to recognize the state-created danger theory of substantive due process. AFFIRMED. 3 Case: 24-10189 Document: 48-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/16/2025 No. 24-10189 Patrick E. Higginbotham, Circuit Judge, concurring: I agree that the panel may not grant the sought-for relief and join in this denial. 4

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.