“Nonetheless, we expect litigants to meet court deadlines and observe the rules of civil procedure.”
How later courts described this case
- “Nonetheless, we expect litigants to meet court deadlines and observe the rules of civil procedure.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IY BY HER PARENT BRITTANY CIVIL ACTION
MCLEMORE
NO. 24-1407
VERSUS
SECTION M (5)
BOGALUSA CITY DISTRICT
SCHOOLS, et al.
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by defendants Bogalusa City District Schools, the
Bogalusa City School Board (the “School Board”), Eddie Walker, Byron Hurst, and Karla
McGehee (collectively, “Defendants”).1 Defendants argue that plaintiff IY by her parent Brittany
McLemore (“Plaintiff”) fails to state a claim under Title IX because (1) the allegations in the
complaint do not establish “sexual harassment” for Title IX purposes; (2) Plaintiff has not alleged
that the purported harassment deprived her of, or interfered with her, educational opportunities;
(3) the allegations in the complaint fail to show that the School Board acted with deliberate
indifference; (4) Plaintiff does not state a viable remedy under Title IX; (5) Plaintiff fails to state
a Title IX claim against the individual defendants, Walker, Hurst, and McGhee, because they are
not Title IX grant recipients; (6) Plaintiff’s bare conclusory allegations of claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 merely recycle the purported Title IX claims; and (7) “Bogalusa City District Schools” is
not a juridical entity capable of being sued under Louisiana law.2
1 R. Doc. 24.
2 R. Doc. 24-1.
The motion is set for submission on October 3, 2024.3 Local Rule 7.5 of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a
motion be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date, making the deadline
in this instance September 25, 2024. As of today (the noticed submission date), Plaintiff, who is
not represented by counsel, has not filed an opposition to the motion. Although the Court construes
pro se filing liberally, pro se parties are still required to “abide by the rules that govern the federal
courts.” EEOC v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir. 2014); see also Jones v. FJC Sec.
Servs., Inc., 612 F. App’x 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2015) (“Nonetheless, we expect litigants to meet court
deadlines and observe the rules of civil procedure.”).
Accordingly, because the motion is unopposed and appears to have merit for the reasons
stated in Defendants’ memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss,4
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (R. Doc. 24) is
GRANTED, and plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3rd day of October, 2024.
________________________________
BARRY W. ASHE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 R. Doc. 24-4.
4 R. Doc. 24-1.