Gardner v. Tulia Indep Sch Dist ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 00-11404
_____________________
HOLLISTER GARDNER
Plaintiff - Appellee - Cross - Appellant
v.
TULIA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; JEANETT HERRING, In her official
capacity and in her individual capacity as Trustee; SAM SADLER, in his
official capcity and in his individual
capacity as Trustee; SCOTT BURROW, in his official capacity and in his
individual capacity as Trustee; ANNA GRANADO, in her official capacity
and in her individual capacity as
Trustee; BOYD MILNER, in his official capacity and in his
individual capacity as Trustee; BEN HOWARD, in his official capacity
and in his individual capacity as Trustee; GARY
GARDNER, in his official capacity as Trustee
Defendants - Appellants - Cross - Appellees
____________________________________________________________
DAN GARDNER, Guardian Ad Litem for Molly Gardner; JO BETH
GARDNER, Guardian Ad Litem for Molly Gardner
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
TULIA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; JEANETT HERRING, In her official
capacity and in her individual capacity as Trustee; SAM SADLER, in his
official capacity and in his individual capacity as Trustee; SCOTT
BURROW, in his official capacity and in his individual capacity as
Trustee; ANNA GRANADO, in her official capacity and in her individual
capacity as
Trustee; BOYD MILNER, in his official capacity and in his
individual capacity as Trustee; BEN HOWARD, in his official capacity
and in his individual capacity as Trustee; GARY
GARDNER, in his official capacity as Trustee
Defendants - Appellants
---------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Amarillo
97-CV-20
---------------------
September 6, 2002
Before KING, Chief Judge, DAVIS, Circuit Judge, and VANCE1, District
Judge.
PER CURIAM:2
The Supreme Court recently decided Board of Education of
Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, 122
S. Ct. 2559 (2002), which is factually analogous to this case. Because
of the effect the Earls decision may have on this case, we vacate the
district court judgment and remand this case to the district court for
further consideration in light of Earls. We leave it to the discretion
of the district court to conduct additional hearings if it considers it
advisable to do so.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
1
District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
2
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.