Case: 22-50295 Document: 00516796556 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
___________ FILED
June 22, 2023
No. 22-50295 Lyle W. Cayce
___________ Clerk
Nidia Heston, As next of friend and mother to A.H., a minor child,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Austin Independent School District,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:21-CV-35
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Patrick E. Higginbotham, Circuit Judge:
Nidia Heston (“Heston”) sued the Austin Independent School
District (“AISD”) on behalf of her minor son, A.H., alleging that AISD
violated § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“§ 504”), the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”) by
employing an individual assigned to help A.H. accommodate his disabilities,
but who instead verbally harassed him and threw a trash can at him, hitting
him and causing injury. After the incident, the parties settled all of A.H.’s
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) claims outside of
court but agreed that Heston still had the right to file a separate action
Case: 22-50295 Document: 00516796556 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2023
No. 22-50295
containing A.H.’s claims arising under § 504, the ADA, and § 1983. Heston
then brought these claims in a suit filed in 2018. The district court dismissed
the suit without prejudice for Heston’s failure to exhaust the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act’s (“IDEA”) administrative remedies (and failure
to show exhaustion was futile). See generally Heston, Next friends of A.H. v.
Sch. Bd. of Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 18-CV-18, 2018 WL 11486915 (W.D.
Tex. Dec. 7, 2018). This Court affirmed that dismissal. See generally Heston,
Next Friend of A.H v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist.,
816 F. App’x 977 (5th Cir.
2020) (unpublished) (per curiam).
Heston then filed this suit, bringing nearly identical claims under the
same three statutory provisions against AISD, with the same factual
allegations as the prior case. The district court dismissed the complaint,
holding that issue preclusion barred Heston from relitigating the same issues
as in the first case. See generally Heston v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., No.
21-CV-35, 2022 WL 958383 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2022). Heston timely
appealed.
Since Heston appealed and the Parties’ briefed the case, the Supreme
Court decided Luna Perez v. Sturgis Pub. Schs., 143 S. Ct. 859 (2023),
concluding that the IDEA does not require administrative exhaustion “where
a plaintiff brings a suit under another federal law for compensatory
damages.”
Id. at 864. This constitutes a “modification[] in controlling legal
principles . . . render[ing] a previous determination inconsistent with the
prevailing doctrine.” EEOC v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
48 F.3d 164, 170 (5th Cir.
1995). Since issue preclusion “must be confined to situations where the
matter raised in the second suit is identical in all respects with that decided
in the first proceeding and where the controlling facts and applicable legal
rules remain unchanged,” Comm’r v. Sunnen,
333 U.S. 591, 599–600 (1948),
it is not warranted in this instance. See also Brister v. A.W.I., Inc.,
946 F.2d
350, 354 n.1 (5th Cir. 1991) (“Not only the facts, but also the legal standard
2
Case: 22-50295 Document: 00516796556 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/22/2023
No. 22-50295
used to assess them, must be identical.” (citing Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v.
Smith Material Corp., 616 F.2d 111, 115 (5th Cir. 1980))).
…
The judgment of the District Court is VACATED, and the case is
REMANDED to the District Court for further consideration in light of
Luna Perez.
3
