Lecil Hander v. San Jacinto Junior Coll., Etc., 522 F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Lecil Hander v. San Jacinto Junior Coll., Etc., 522 F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
44 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tercero v. TX Southmost Coll Dist (ca5, 2021-02-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tercero v. TX Southmost Coll Dist
5th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
“Texas junior college districts[—such as TSC—]are independent political subdivisions[.]” Hander v. San Jacinto Jr. Coll., 522 F.2d 204, 205 (5th Cir. 1975) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) B.H. Papasan, Superintendent of Education v. United States of America
5th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Though the question of whether an entity is an arm of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes is one of federal law, “federal courts must examine the powers, characteristics, and relationships created by state law" to determine if an action is really one against a "state." Han- der v. San Jacinto Junior College, 519 F.2d 273, 279-80 , clarified, 522 F.2d 204, 205 (5th Cir. 1975) (under Texas law, school districts are independent political corporations distinct from state itself).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Patsy Goss v. San Jacinto Junior College, Etc.
5th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
See e. g., Roane v. Callisburg Independent School Dist., 511 F.2d 633 , 635 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1975); Hander v. San Jacinto Junior College, 522 F.2d 204, 205 (5th Cir. 1975); Reeves v. City of Jackson, Miss., 532 F.2d 491, 495 (5th Cir. 1976); Stapp v. Avoyelles Parish School Board, 545 F.2d 527 , 531 n. 7 (5th Cir. 1977). 3 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fernandes v. Limmer
N.D. Tex. · 1979 · confidence medium
Goss v. San Jacinto Junior College, 588 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1979); Stapp v. Avoyelles Parish School Board, 545 F.2d 527 , 531 n. 7 (5th Cir. 1977); Reeves v. City of Jackson, Miss., 532 F.2d 491, 495 (5th Cir. 1976); Hander v. San Jacinto Junior College, 522 F.2d 204, 205 (5th Cir. 1975); Roane v. Callisburg Independent, 511 F.2d 633 , 635 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1975).
cited Cited "see" Johnson v. San Jacinto Junior College
S.D. Tex. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hander v. San Jacinto Junior College, 519 F.2d 273, 278-80 (5th Cir.), rehearing denied, 522 F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1975).
discussed Cited "see" Sartin v. City of Columbus Utilities Commission
N.D. Miss. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hander v. San Jacinto Junior College, 522 F.2d 204 (5 Cir. 1975); Roane v. Callisburg Independent School District, 511 F.2d 633 (5 Cir. 1975); Collum v. Yurkovich, 409 F.Supp. 557 (N.D.Ill.1975); Lombard v. Board of Education of City of New York, 407 F.Supp. 1166 (E.D.N.Y.1976); Panzarella v. Boyle, 406 F.Supp. 787 (D.R.I.1975).
cited Cited "see" Croy v. Skinner
N.D. Ga. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hander v. San Jacinto Junior College, 519 F.2d 273 (5th Cir. 1975), on rehearing, 522 F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1975) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gay Student Services v. Texas a & M University
5th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Goss v. San Jacinto Junior College, 588 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1979), citing Hander v. San Jacinto Junior College, 519 F.2d 273 , aff’d per curiam on rehearing, 522 F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1975) (under Texas code suit against the junior college was not in reality a suit against the state); Samuel v. University of Pittsburgh, 538 F.2d 991 (3rd Cir. 1976) (University of Pittsburgh, Temple University and Penn State University held liable for equitable restitution of tuition fees because of not being state instru-mentalities).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Donna Bertot v. School District No. 1, Albany County, Wyoming (2×)
10th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
Although at least one circuit has explicitly permitted the award of compensatory damages-, see Hostrop v. Board of Junior College District No. 515, 523 F.2d 569, 578-80 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 963 , 96 S.Ct. 1748 , 48 L.Ed.2d 208 (1976); see also Bursey v. Weatherford, 528 F.2d 483 , 488-89 & 488 n.8 (4th Cir. 1975), rev’d on other grounds, 429 U.S. 545 , 97 S.Ct. 837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977) , we need not go so far. 5 See, e. g., Hander v. San Jacinto Junior College, 519 F.2d 273 , 277 n.1, rehearing denied, 522 F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lecil HANDER, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SAN JACINTO JUNIOR COLLEGE, Et Al., Etc., Defendants-Appellants
74-2279.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Oct 29, 1975.
522 F.2d 204
B. Jeff Crane, Jr., Francis E. McGovern, II, Houston, Tex., for defendants-appellants., Larry Watts, Houston, Tex., Stephen J. Poliak, David Rubin, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Brown, Gewin, Per Curiam, Thornberry.
Cited by 40 opinions  |  Published
[*205] PER CURIAM:

For purposes of clarification we wish to explicate our earlier opinion in this case with respect to the jurisdiction of the district court. [1] The appellee Hander’s complaint was premised on the First and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1970). [2] The complaint also based jurisdiction on Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 (1970). In an informal finding which is not questioned on appeal, the district court at least implicitly found jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1970). [3] We are of the opinion, and so hold, that jurisdiction in this case is proper under § 1331. [4]

There has been no dispute that the amount in controversy here has at all times exceeded $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs (appellee sought $100,-000 in his complaint). Further, in accordance with our holding in Lansdale, 5 there can be no doubt that this action “arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a)(1970). Moreover, as we have recently held, [6] the mere fact that § 1331 jurisdiction is not specifically alleged is not determinative. Appellee Hander, then, possesses the same jurisdictional status as teacher and administrator Roane in our recent case of Roane v. Callisburg Independent School District, 511 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 1975), wherein we noted that Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961), and Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 93 S.Ct. 2222, 37 L.Ed.2d 109 (1973), left open the possibility, fully exploited by us in several cases, of § 1331 jurisdiction and that, “Regardless of whether a school district is treated as a municipality or as a ‘person’, the record in this case indicates that the plaintiff Roane satisfied the jurisdictional requisites of § 1331,” 511 F.2d at 635 n. 1 (citations omitted).

Thus, in accordance with the above discussion, we abide by our original determination that Texas junior college districts are “independent political subdivisions not immune from suit,” [7] for Eleventh Amendment purposes. Accordingly, Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1972), does not constitute a bar to this suit.

[*206] Therefore, we hold that jurisdiction exists under § 1331 and that the “non-person” rule of Kenosha is not controlling. With this clarification, our earlier opinion is in all respects affirmed.

The petition for rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

1

. As a preliminary matter, we note that, although appellants had argued in the district court that § 1983 jurisdiction was lacking, this matter was not presented in their briefs on appeal. In their post-argument memorandum and in their petition for rehearing, appellants still have not specifically focused on the jurisdictional question, preferring instead to contend that there has been no constitutional violation because, it is argued, appellee has no right to choose a method of grooming, but is bound by the rules of the college.

Nonetheless, we detail our jurisdictional holding herein because it is the determinative issue. Appellant would have us rehash our conclusion in Lansdale v. Tyler Junior College, 470 F.2d 659 (5th Cir. 1972) (en banc), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 986, 93 S.Ct. 2268, 36 L.Ed.2d 964 (1973), that freedom to choose a grooming style at the college level can rise to constitutional proportions. This we refuse to do. Thus, we have encountered no difficulty in determining that appellee possesses a valid claim for relief which arises under the United States Constitution, as we held in Lansdale.

2

. Appendix at 4-10.

3

. Appendix at 83-84; Brief of Appellee at 4 n. 3.

4

. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1970) (general federal question jurisdiction). This holding thus obviates any potential problems which might arise, were jurisdiction based solely on section 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (1970), because of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 93 S.Ct. 2222, 37 L.Ed.2d 109 (1973). In Kenosha the Supreme Court held that a municipality was not a “person” for purposes of sections 1983 and 1343. See also Sterzing v. Fort Bend Ind. School Dist., 496 F.2d 92, 93 n. 2 (5th Cir. 1974). Since in this case jurisdiction exists under section 1331, we pretermit an extensive discussion of Kenosha, see, e. g., Mitchell v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 507 F.2d 662, 666-67 & n. 9 (5th Cir. 1975).

5

. See note 1 supra.

6

. Kelly v. West Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 517 F.2d 194 at p. 197 (5th Cir. 1975) (“Federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 may also be invoked though that section is not relied on in the complaint.”) (citations omitted).

7

. Hander v. San Jacinto Junior College, 519 F.2d 273 at 279 (5th Cir. 1975).