## Facts

- Montana Lance, a fourth-grade student, received special-education services for a speech impediment, ADHD-related learning disability, and later emotional disturbance.
- The school’s committee developed an IEP and Behavioral Improvement Plan; the school provided speech therapy, dyslexia services, and counseling.
- In second grade, Montana’s mother reported that he made statements at home about hurting himself; the school sought a psychological evaluation and identified him as emotionally disturbed.
- Montana experienced peer conflicts and was picked on; the school documented incidents, investigated them, and disciplined involved students, including Montana.
- In fourth grade, after an altercation, Montana was sent to the office and permitted to use only the nurse’s bathroom.
- Montana locked himself in the bathroom and died by suicide; staff later forced entry, and he was pronounced dead at the hospital.
- Montana’s parents and his estate sued the school district under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; the district court granted summary judgment for the district.

## Issues

1. Whether the school district violated substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment (via § 1983) by failing to protect Montana from self-harm or peer bullying under a “special relationship” or “state-created danger” theory.
2. Whether the school district violated § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by discriminating against Montana “solely by reason of” disability, including by responding with deliberate indifference to disability-based peer harassment.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the school district on the § 1983 and § 504 claims.
- The court held the Due Process Clause imposed no affirmative duty on the district to protect Montana from private acts of harm absent a recognized exception.
- The court concluded compulsory school attendance did not create a custodial “special relationship” imposing a constitutional duty to protect.
- The court declined to find liability under a “state-created danger” theory, noting the circuit had not adopted a broad doctrine and the evidence did not show the district used its authority to make Montana more vulnerable than if it had not acted.
- The court held the summary-judgment record did not show deliberate indifference to an obvious risk of self-harm given the district’s steps (evaluation, meetings, and counseling supports).
- The court held the evidence did not create a triable issue that Montana was subjected to disability-based harassment to which the district responded with deliberate indifference, or that he was denied educational benefits solely by reason of disability.

## Legal Principles

- The Due Process Clause generally does not require state actors to protect individuals from harm inflicted by private parties.
- A “special relationship” triggering an affirmative constitutional duty arises only in custody-like settings; compulsory public-school attendance, without more, is insufficient.
- In the Fifth Circuit, a “state-created danger” theory is not broadly recognized; even if considered, it requires state action that creates or increases a specific danger by using governmental authority to render the person more vulnerable.
- Substantive due process liability requires conduct beyond negligence; deliberate indifference must be shown where the claim rests on failure to act in the face of an obvious danger.
- A § 504 damages claim requires proof that the plaintiff was discriminated against “solely by reason of” disability and that the defendant acted with intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference; peer-harassment theories require harassment that is severe and pervasive and a response that is clearly unreasonable in light of known circumstances.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that the school district had no affirmative constitutional duty to prevent a student’s suicide or protect him from peer conflicts under the circumstances presented and that the record did not support § 504 liability absent proof of disability-based harassment and deliberate indifference or other intentional discrimination.


Estate of Lance v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 982 (5th Cir. 2014)