UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 97-40395
Summary Calendar
LUIS ERNEST SANCHEZ, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
FRIENDSWOOD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(G-96-CV-608)
December 9, 1997
Before WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Luis Sanchez, Jr. filed a complaint against the Friendswood
Independent School District in which he alleged that the school
district, in violation of federal and state law, (1) refused to
allow him to graduate, (2) improperly placed him in an alternative
and isolated learning environment, and (3) denied him various
educational rights, including the right to receive academic,
psychological, and developmental testing. Without reaching the
merits, the district court dismissed Sanchez’s complaint with
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.
prejudice on the ground that he had violated a local court rule.2
Sanchez appeals.
Though the district court erred in dismissing the complaint on
the basis of its finding that Sanchez violated a local court rule,3
we affirm the dismissal on other grounds.4 Sanchez failed to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In paragraphs 6 and 10 of his complaint, Sanchez appears to
assert claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress
based upon the school district’s refusal to allow him to graduate.
The school district is immune from such intentional tort suits.5
Furthermore, Sanchez has not alleged facts that rise to a level of
outrageousness sufficient for a finding that the school district
intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon him.6
Sanchez’s claim that he was improperly deprived of academic,
psychological and developmental testing appears to fall under the
rubric of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (“IDEA”). Even if
2
The Southern District of Texas Rule 6 requires oppositions
to be filed within 20 days of the filing of a motion. Failure to
respond to a motion will be taken as a representation of no
opposition.
3
See John v. State of La. Board of Trustees for State
Colleges and Universities, 757 F.2d 698, 707-8 (5th Cir. 1985); see
also Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir. 1991).
4
See Johnson v. Sawyer, 120 F.3d 1307, 1316 (5th Cir. 1997).
5
Jones v. Houston Independent School District, 979 F.2d 1004,
1007 (5th Cir. 1992)
6
See Guthrie v. Tifco Industries, 941 F.2d 374, 379 (5th Cir.
1991).
2
Sanchez were entitled to IDEA’s protections, his claim must be
dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.7
Finally, Sanchez did not plead facts sufficient to constitute
a substantive or procedural due process violation. The school
district did not violate Sanchez’s substantive or procedural due
process rights by transferring him to an alternative learning
environment for disciplinary reasons.8
The district court’s dismissal of Sanchez’s claim with
prejudice is AFFIRMED.
7
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 326-27 (1988); Gardner v. School
Board Caddo Parish, 958 F.2d 108, 112 (5th Cir. 1992)
8
See Nevares v. San Marcos Consolidated Independent School
District, 111 F.3d 25, 26 (5th Cir. 1997).
3