IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-50561
TED MEYER, Individually and as Next Friend for Carolyn Preciado, A
Minor; ROSEMARY MEYER, Individually and as Next Friend for Carolyn
Preciado, A Minor; HAROLD ROBBINS, Individually and as Next Friend
for Linda Rosales, now known as Linda Quiroz, A Minor; LINDA
ROBBINS, Individually and as Next Friend for Linda Rosales, now
known as Linda Quiroz, A Minor; PEDRO R AGUIRRE, Individually and
as Next Friend for Angelica Aguirre, A Minor; SYLVIA MARTINEZ,
Individually and as Next Friend for Aglae Martinez, A Minor; JESSE
MARTINEZ, Individually and as Next Friend for Aglae Martinez, A
Minor; HERMINIA LARIOS, Parent of Sarah Ramirez; SARAH RAMIREZ
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT;
KENT EWING, Principal, Bowie High School
Defendants-Appellants
____________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
____________________________________________
February 10, 1999
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
(Opinion November 16, 1998, 5th Cir. 1998 ____F.3d____)
Before KING, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:
The appellants seek rehearing, contending we held that a
principal would “lose qualified immunity simply because he
mistakenly assumes that a parent’s defense of his or her child
reflects the child’s side of the story,” and that “if a school
administrator gives a parent an opportunity to defend his or her
child, but later the child contends he or she would have told a
different story, that school administrator will be personally
liable for money damages.” We did not hold that. To the contrary,
we held that procedural due process is satisfied where there is a
meaningful opportunity to tell the child’s side of the story. Of
course, an administrator’s speaking with a parent will not create
a meaningful opportunity in every case. Thus, for example, here
plaintiffs contend that various administrators merely informed the
parents of what had happened and the discipline already imposed and
gave the parents no meaningful opportunity to explain or seek a
different result. Whether such a meaningful opportunity existed
here we do not assess. This we leave to the district court, as we
must given the limited nature of our interlocutory review.
PETITION FOR REHEARING DENIED.
2