(caption unavailable)

1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 94-60004
Summary Calendar
_____________________________________
JOSE RENE MARTINEZ, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
PHARR-SAN JUAN-ALAMO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_____________________________________
No. 94-60798
Summary Calendar
_____________________________________
JOSE RENE MARTINEZ, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
PHARR-SAN JUAN-ALAMO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellants.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
CA M 90 223
______________________________________________________
June 16, 1995
Before DUHÉ, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1

-- 1 of 6 --

should not be published.
2
In these consolidated matters Jose Rene Martinez Jr. appeals
the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of all
defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. Defendants appeal the
district court's denial of their request for attorney's fees. We
affirm both decisions.
These claims arise from a tragic accident on the grounds of a
high school in the Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District
and the ensuing investigation by the school authorities and local
police.
A special education student was chasing Appellant Martinez and
two of his friends on the school ground during lunch time. The
special education student fell striking his head causing injuries
from which he later died at the hospital to which he had been
promptly removed by ambulance. Assistant Principal Daniel was
responsible for school security. Principal Farias put Daniel in
charge of investigating the incident while Farias attended to
matters pertaining to the dead student. Daniel called police. He
had armed uniformed school security guards remove Martinez from his
classroom and bring him, and other students, to Daniel's office
where they were questioned by Daniel outside the presence of the
security guards.
Police officers took Martinez to the station for further
questioning without a warrant. Daniel did not object to this and
may even have suggested it.

-- 2 of 6 --

3
Daniel made no effort to notify Martinez's parents that their
son was being taken from the school to the police station.
At the station, Martinez asked police for permission to call
his mother but his request was denied. When the questioning was
concluded the police returned Martinez to school but he had missed
the bus which he usually rode. Instead of arriving at home at
approximately 3:30 PM as was normal, he did not arrive until 5:30
or 6:00.
When he arrived home, Martinez related these events to his
mother and that he might be going to jail for killing the other
student. He became ill and was taken to the hospital emergency
room. He was diabetic and this information was available to
Assistant Principal Daniel who did not make it available to the
police. Martinez never complained to school or police officials
about feeling ill or having any health problem. No one observed
him experience a health problem.
Upon Martinez' return to school following the incident, other
students made derogatory remarks to him and a coach referred to him
as having killed the other student. He received threatening
telephone calls. Assistant Principal Daniel made no effort to
restrain other students remarks to Martinez who became depressed,
performed poorly academically, and dropped out of school.
The foregoing is a brief summary of the undisputed facts. We
do not recite the facts in more detail, simply because, for
purposes of this opinion which is solely to inform the parties to
the litigation of the reasons for our determination, this

-- 3 of 6 --

4
recitation is adequate. We have, however, reviewed the record in
this case and the briefs of the parties in great detail.
Martinez sued Principal Farias, Assistant Principal Daniel and
the District. Following a hearing, the district court granted
summary judgment finding that Appellant had created no fact issue
as to any constitutional violation; that the individual defendants
Farias and Daniel were entitled to qualified immunity, and that the
Appellant had made no showing that the school district had a custom
or policy compelling or approving the alleged improper conduct.
To defeat the Defendants' claim of qualified immunity and to
state a claim under § 1983, Appellant must identify a
constitutional violation. Walton v. Alexander, 44 F.3d 1297, 1301
(5th Cir. 1995) (en banc). To defeat the motion for summary
judgment on his claim that he was deprived a protected liberty
interest, Appellant must identify a liberty interest protected by
the Fourteenth Amendment and raise an issue of material fact
concerning whether a state actor intentionally or recklessly
deprived him of that interest. Id. at 1301-02.
The only allegation Appellant makes about Principal Farias's
involvement in the events is that he placed Assistant Principal
Daniel in charge. Appellant attributed to Farias no personal
involvement in the allegedly injurious events. There is no
vicarious liability under § 1983. Leffall v. Dallas Indep. Sch.
Dist., 521, 525 (5th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment as to Principal
Farias was obviously proper.
To defeat summary judgment in favor of the school district
Appellant must establish that it had a custom or policy that
resulted in the injury. Leffall, 28 F.3d at 525. Appellant relies

-- 4 of 6 --

5
on his claim that Assistant Principal Daniel violated the school
district's established custom and policy of notifying parents
before releasing a student to the police during school hours.
Viewed in the light most favorable to Appellant, the evidence
simply shows that the school officials attempt, as often as they
can, to notify parents under these circumstances. This does not
create an issue of fact about whether there is a custom and policy
established by the school board. Additionally, Appellant does not
allege that violation of this supposed custom or policy, if it did
exist, resulted in any injury to Martinez.
Nor has Appellant successfully raised a material issue of fact
concerning a "special relationship" between himself and the school
board or school personnel. Even if such relationship exists, the
harm resulting from a supervisory failure must be the result of
deliberate indifference to the welfare of the person in custody.
Doe v. Taylor Indep. Sch. Dist., 15 F.3d 443, 454 (5th Cir. 1994)
(en banc), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 70 (1994). The record is devoid
of any issue of fact showing deliberate indifference on the part of
Defendants. Even if Appellant could show that Daniel was
deliberately indifferent to the remarks made by the coach and
students to Martinez, and that such remarks were injurious to
Martinez, this would constitute damage to his reputation which is
not constitutionally actionable unless it is tied to some more
tangible interest, such as employment. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S.
693, 711-12 (1976); Thomas v. Kippermann, 846 F.2d 1009, 1010 (5th
Cir. 1988). No such issues of fact are raised. There is no
discernable basis for liability on the part of the school district.

-- 5 of 6 --

6
Nor has Appellant created an issue of fact as to how Daniel's
removal of Martinez from the classroom and questioning him violated
a liberty interest. He has shown no deliberate indifference to his
welfare exhibited by Daniel in taking this action. See Doe v.
Taylor, 15 F.3d at 454; Ramie v. Hedwig Village, 765 F.2d 490, 492-
93 (5th Cir. 1985); cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1062 (1986).
The same is true for the claims made as a result of Daniel's
failure to telephone Martinez's parents or to advise the police of
his diabetic condition or of permitting the police to remove him to
the police station for questioning. There is no evidence adduced
indicating that any of these things were the result of deliberate
indifference to Martinez's physical condition or liberty interests.
Of course, whatever may have occurred after Martinez was taken into
the police station for questioning can bring no liability upon
school officials. Jennings v. Joshua Indep. Sch. Dist., 877 F.2d
313, 316 (5th Cir. 1989), cert denied, 496 U.S. 935 (1990).
Because Martinez creates no issue of fact concerning a
constitutional violation, the doctrine of qualified immunity is
applicable.
Likewise the Defendant's contention that the district court
erred in denying their motion for attorney's fees is without merit.
Under § 1988 prevailing Defendants may be awarded attorney's fees
only if an underlying claim is frivolous, unreasonable, or
groundless. This claim was none of these and the district court
did not err in so concluding.
AFFIRMED.

-- 6 of 6 --