A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a Las Vegas student and her mother against the Clark County School District following a violent classroom incident in February 2022.
The case centered on allegations that the school district failed to protect a student, identified in court documents as G.R.L., from a classmate who allegedly attacked her during class at a Las Vegas high school. According to the lawsuit, the attacker, referred to as N.A., had repeatedly punched G.R.L. in the head, rendering her unconscious. The incident was captured on cellphone video and subsequently gained national attention.
Rosa Lainez Lemus and her daughter had argued that the school district bore responsibility for the attack by placing N.A. in the same general education classroom as G.R.L., despite allegedly knowing about the student’s violent tendencies. The plaintiffs claimed that N.A. had previously threatened and harassed G.R.L. before the February 2022 assault.
In their legal challenge, the mother and daughter pursued a state-created danger theory, asserting that the district had knowledge of N.A.’s violent history. They pointed to a 2019 incident where N.A. had thrown a bottle of lotion at another person as evidence of this pattern of behavior.
The three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, found these allegations insufficient to establish that the school district had adequate notice of the danger N.A. posed to other students. The panel consisted of Circuit Judges Gabriel Sanchez and Mark Bennett, along with District Judge John Holcomb, who participated by designation.
In their written decision, the judges stated that the plaintiffs had not provided enough facts to plausibly allege that the school district recognized an unreasonable risk when placing N.A. in a classroom with G.R.L. The court noted that while there were allegations of N.A.’s insubordination toward teachers, these incidents did not involve violence or conflict with other students.
The plaintiffs had also attempted to strengthen their case by citing N.A.’s mental health history. Court documents revealed that N.A. had received in-patient treatment for several weeks in 2021 for a long-term mental health condition and had been unable to attend school at the beginning of the 2021-22 academic year.
The appeals court found this argument unconvincing, noting that the plaintiffs had failed to establish any connection between the mental health treatment and a history of violence. Furthermore, they provided no specific information about the nature of the condition or what the school district knew about it.
The panel also addressed a municipal liability claim brought by the plaintiffs. For such a claim to succeed, plaintiffs must demonstrate that a policy, custom, or practice led to a constitutional violation. While the lower court had assumed the district maintained a policy of placing violent students in general education classrooms, the appeals court determined that the mother and daughter had not sufficiently argued that this policy was the direct cause of the attack.
Attorney Andre Lagomarsino, representing the mother and daughter, indicated that they are evaluating the court’s decision and considering potential next steps with their client. Attorney Akke Levin represented the Clark County School District in the proceedings.
The decision affirms an earlier ruling by a lower court that had dismissed the lawsuit, maintaining that the school district could not be held liable for the classroom assault under the circumstances presented in the case.
Leave a Reply