L.R. v. School District of Philadelphia
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
836 F.3d 235 (2016)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Jane was a kindergarten student in a public school in the School District of Philadelphia (defendant). Reginald Littlejohn (defendant) was Jane’s teacher. An adult female went to Jane’s classroom and attempted to take Jane. Littlejohn asked the adult for identification and authorization that she was allowed to take Jane from the school. The adult did not provide any identification or authorization, but Littlejohn let her take Jane anyway. The adult was a complete stranger to Jane and sexually assaulted Jane later that day, severely injuring her. The adult released Jane early the next morning, and a sanitation worker found her after hearing her cries. Jane’s mother, L.R. (plaintiff), sued Littlejohn and the school district in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint alleged that Littlejohn’s action of releasing Jane to an unidentified adult had violated Jane’s constitutional rights. Littlejohn moved to dismiss the claims against him, arguing that the doctrine of qualified immunity protected him from claims based on actions taken in his capacity as a state official, namely, a public-school teacher. The district court found that, under the doctrine of state-created danger, qualified immunity did not apply to these claims, and it denied Littlejohn’s motion. Littlejohn appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fuentes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

