Henderson v. Grand Prairie Independent School District, No. 4:2012cv00498 - Document 9 (N.D. Tex. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER granting 8 MOTION to Dismiss... plaintiff's claim for IIED against defendant be, and is hereby, dismissed. See Order for further specifics. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 10/9/2012) (krg)

Download PDF

U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEX FORT WORTH DIVISION ANGEL HENDERSON, OCT -9 2012 .·. _J CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT By ____~~------ § Deputy § Plaintiff, § § vs. § NO. 4:12-CV-498-A § GRAND PRAIRIE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, § § § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Now pending before the court is the motion of defendant, Grand Prairie Independent School District, to dismiss plaintiff, Angel Henderson's, claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress ("liED"), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. After having considered such motion, plaintiff's complaint, and applicable legal authorities, the court has concluded that defendant's motion should be granted. I. Background Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on July 19, 2012, alleging two claims under the Family Medical Leave Act and one claim for liED. Defendant filed its motion to dismiss the liED claim on August 27, 2012, and plaintiff did not file a response. In its motion, defendant contends that plaintiff's IIED claim is barred "because the State of Texas has not waived immunity for an intentional tort." Mot. at 5. II. Analysis A. Pleading Standards Rule 8(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in a general way, the applicable standard of pleading. It requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (2), "in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) quotation marks and ellipsis omitted) . (internal Although a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, the "showing" contemplated by Rule 8 requires the plaintiff to do more than simply allege legal conclusions or recite the elements of a cause of action. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 & n.3. Moreover, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the facts pleaded must allow the court to infer that the plaintiff's right to relief is plausible. Igbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 2 B. Applying the Standards to Plaintiff's liED Claim The court concludes that the complaint fails to allege a plausible right to relief for plaintiff for liED, and agrees with defendant that defendant is immune from liability for liED. A Texas government entity is generally immune from tort liability unless the legislature has waived such immunity. Forgan v. Howard Cnty., Tex., 494 F.3d 518, 520 (5th Cir. 2007); Harris Cnty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex. 2004). The Texas Tort Claims Act ("TTCA") waives governmental immunity in only three general categories: the "use of publicly owned vehicles, premises defects, and injuries arising from conditions or use of property." Brown v. Montgomery Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 905 S.W.2d (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1995); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & 481, 484 Rem. Code § 101.021. For school districts, the TTCA's waiver is even more narrow, and is limited to tort claims for injuries arising from the negligent use or operation of motor vehicles. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 101.021 & 101.051; Mission Consol. Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 253 S.W.3d 653, 656 (Tex. 2008). Additionally, governmental immunity is not waived for intentional torts. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.057(2); Umoren v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., 457 Fed. App'x 422, 425 (5th Cir. 2012) (stating that school district employee's claim for liED was barred by the TTCA); Bates v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 3 952 S.W.2d 543, 551 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1997, writ denied.). Thus, because plaintiff has attempted to bring an intentional tort claim, IIED, against the defendant, a school district, such claim is barred by governmental immunity and must be dismissed. III. Order Therefore, The court ORDERS that plaintiff's claim for IIED against defendant be, and is hereby, dismissed. SIGNED October 9, 2012. ' 4 4 I

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.