Littell v. Houston Independent School District

What This Case Is About

An assistant principal at a Houston middle school ordered a mass strip search of twenty-two sixth-grade girls after $50 went missing from choir class. Everyone agreed the search violated the students’ constitutional rights. The question was whether the school district could be held liable under § 1983 for its alleged failure to provide any Fourth Amendment training to employees who conduct student searches. The Fifth Circuit reversed dismissal and held the complaint plausibly stated a failure-to-train claim.

The Facts

During a sixth-grade choir class at Lanier Middle School in Houston, $50 went missing. Assistant Principal Verlinda Higgins was called to investigate. When no money turned up, a school police officer suggested “girls like to hide things in their bras and panties.” Higgins took all twenty-two girls to the school nurse, who strip-searched them one by one — checking waistbands, loosening bras, and requiring the girls to lift their shirts from shoulder to waist. No parents were notified despite the girls’ requests. No money was found.

The Houston Independent School District’s written search policies correctly stated abstract legal standards but provided no training whatsoever on how to apply those standards. The principal’s disciplinary memo to Higgins criticized her only for searching for something other than “contraband” — never mentioning the constitutional defects of a mass, suspicionless strip search — and even anticipated she might conduct strip searches “in the future.”

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the complaint plausibly alleged municipal liability under City of Canton v. Harris’s failure-to-train framework.

The court explained that there are two ways to prove deliberate indifference in a failure-to-train case: (1) a pattern of prior violations making the need for training obvious, or (2) a single incident where the risk of a constitutional violation was a “highly predictable consequence” of the failure to train. The second method applies only in narrow circumstances — typically where the municipality provides “no training whatsoever” regarding a clear constitutional duty that employees are certain to face.

Here, the court found this was exactly such a case. Like the Canton hypothetical — where a city arms officers with firearms but provides no training on the constitutional limits of deadly force — the school district authorized employees to search students but allegedly provided zero Fourth Amendment training. The constitutional duty not to conduct unreasonable searches was clearly established, student searches were a recurring situation, and school employees could not be expected to arrive pre-equipped with legal knowledge.

The court also held the complaint plausibly alleged causation: even “a modicum of Fourth Amendment training” would have alerted Higgins that a mass, suspicionless strip search of preteens was unconstitutional.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Littell is one of the most important Fifth Circuit decisions on single-incident failure-to-train liability:

• Complete failure to train: If the municipality provides no training at all on a clear constitutional duty in a recurring situation, you may not need to prove a pattern of prior violations.
• The Canton hypothetical, applied: The court explicitly mapped this case onto Canton’s famous hypothetical about arming officers without training on deadly force. The same logic applies whenever a government employer authorizes an activity that implicates constitutional rights but provides no training on constitutional limits.
• Written policies are not enough: Having written policies that correctly state the law does not insulate a municipality from liability. If no one is trained on what those policies mean or how to apply them, the policies are meaningless.
• Pleading stage: This analysis occurred at the motion to dismiss stage. The court did not require proof — only plausible allegations. The actual existence of a complete training failure must be proven at summary judgment or trial.

Key Takeaway

A municipality that authorizes its employees to conduct searches but provides absolutely no Fourth Amendment training may be held liable under § 1983 based on a single incident — because when a government employer provides no training on a clear constitutional duty that employees will certainly face, constitutional violations are “highly predictable.”