Garcia v. Miera
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
817 F.2d 650 (1987)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Teresa Garcia (plaintiff) was a third-grader at Penasco Elementary School. After Garcia hit a boy who had kicked Garcia, school principal Theresa Miera (defendant) summoned Garcia to her office. Miera had another teacher hold Garcia in the air by Garcia’s ankles while Miera paddled the front of Garcia’s legs. The beating left Garcia bleeding, welted, and permanently physically scarred. Garcia’s parents then told Miera not to spank Garcia again without advance notice. A few months later, Miera again summoned Garcia to her office to punish Garcia for gossiping about a teacher’s potential romantic involvement with the father of a student. While resisting Miera and a teacher’s attempts to paddle her, Garcia suffered a back injury. Miera and the other teacher eventually subdued Garcia and paddled her. Garcia was left with bruises that a doctor described as inconsistent with a routine spanking and that a nurse said would have led her to call child protective services had the bruises been received at home. Garcia, through her parents, sued Miera under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of Garcia’s substantive-due-process rights. The district court granted Miera’s motion for summary judgment, and Garcia appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Logan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.