Introducing The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News, your source for engaging and informative Texas news. Our publication focuses on delivering accurate and impactful stories that matter to you, with a primary emphasis on South Texas, including Hays, Bexar, Nueces, Webb, Cameron, and Hidalgo counties. Stay informed about pressing issues and gain a deeper understanding of your government. With a commitment to transparency and accountability, trust us to provide reliable information that holds those in power accountable.
A former juvenile detainee, alleged Hays County Juvenile Detention Center deprived him of educational and mental health services. Following complex litigation involving constitutional, disability, and education laws, the U.S Court of Appeals partly reversed prior judgements, leading the case to remand for further proceedings

Hays County Juvenile Detention Center Accused of Violating the Law
In the case of Zapata v. Hays County Juvenile Detention Center, Emiliano Zapata, a 16-year-old detainee (at the time), alleges that he was deprived of educational and mental health services during his 48-day detention in the summer of 2020. After bringing a lawsuit against the detention center, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on Zapata’s claims under the Eighth Amendment, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court also affirmed the prior dismissal of Zapata’s Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act claims. Zapata filed an appeal.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has reviewed the case and has affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s decision. They have remanded the case back to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas for further proceedings. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Zapata’s claims arising under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act.
The Hays County Juvenile Detention Center, located in San Marcos, Texas, is a correctional facility that provides pre- and post-adjudication detention for juveniles. The facility contracted with the John H. Woods Charter School – Inspire Academy to serve as the “local education agency” and provide educational services to its residents under the IDEA.
When Zapata arrived at the Detention Center on May 20, 2020, he underwent several assessments conducted by Detention Center personnel. These assessments aimed to gather information about his educational and mental health needs. However, Zapata claims that the results of these assessments failed to accurately identify his need for special education classes and mental health services.
During his detention, Zapata was subject to quarantine protocols due to COVID-19. He had limited communication with his father during this time. Later, he underwent a psychological evaluation conducted by Dr. Keeley Crowfoot.
Zapata filed an administrative complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, which was subsequently dismissed by a Texas Special Education Hearing Officer. Zapata then initiated a lawsuit action against the Detention Center and its administrator, Brett Littlejohn, seeking review of the dismissal and alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The district court granted the Detention Center’s and Littlejohn’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. The court concluded that the responsibility of providing relevant educational services rests with the local education agency, not the Detention Center. Therefore, the failure to provide these services did not render the Detention Center liable under the IDEA. Furthermore, the court found that the Detention Center was not aware of Zapata’s disability and, even if they were, they provided reasonable accommodation as required by the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. Lastly, the court determined that Littlejohn was not a policymaker, dismissing any claims against him under § 1983.
The 5th Circuits Ruling on the Hays County Juvenile Detention Center’s Actions Related to IDEA
In the appeal of Zapata v. Hays County Juvenile Detention Center, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s order affirming the Special Education Hearing Officer’s dismissal of Zapata’s Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) claim. The court determined that the responsibility of providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to incarcerated children rests with the local education agency designated by the state, not the detention facility itself. This authority is granted to states under the IDEA.
In Texas, state law assigns the responsibility of providing FAPE to children with disabilities residing in residential facilities to the Texas Education Agency, the Health and Human Services Commission, the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Juvenile Justice Department. These agencies establish the respective responsibilities of school districts and residential facilities for IDEA compliance.
Under this framework, the John H. Woods Charter School – Inspire Academy had agreed to be the local education agency responsible for providing or ensuring the provision of FAPE to students with disabilities residing in the Hays County Juvenile Detention Center. Therefore, the court agreed with the Special Education Hearing Officer and the district court that the Detention Center was absolved of responsibility for IDEA implementation and compliance.
Zapata argued that federal regulations prevent the state from fully relinquishing responsibility for IDEA compliance and absolving itself of liability. However, the court disagreed, citing the U.S. Code provision that allows a state to assign the responsibility of IDEA compliance to a public agency. The regulations Zapata relied on were found to be harmoniously interpreted with the statute, indicating that a detention facility is responsible for meeting IDEA’s mandates unless a state assigns that responsibility to another agency or organization.
Based on the delegation of responsibility and the contractual agreement between the Detention Center and the local education agency, the court concluded that the Detention Center could not be held liable for IDEA noncompliance.
Overall, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision in part and remanded the case back to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas for further proceedings. They also affirmed the dismissal of Zapata’s claims arising under the IDEA.
The 5th Circuits Ruling on the Hays County Juvenile Detention Center’s Actions Related to the Rehabilitation Act and ADA
In the appeal of Zapata v. Hays County Juvenile Detention Center, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s order granting the Detention Center and Littlejohn summary judgment on Zapata’s Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims. The court applied the prima facie case of discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, which is operationally identical to the test under the ADA.
To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, a plaintiff must show: (1) that they are a qualified individual within the meaning of the ADA, (2) that they are being excluded from participation in, or being denied benefits of, services, programs, or activities by a public entity, and (3) that such exclusion or denial of benefits is by reason of their disability. The third prong can be established by showing that the defendants failed to make reasonable accommodations.
In this case, the Fifth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that Zapata failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the Detention Center had knowledge of Zapata’s disabilities and whether he was provided with a reasonable accommodation. The court found that within two weeks of Zapata’s release from medical quarantine, he underwent a psychological evaluation that diagnosed him with various disabilities and provided a list of recommendations for accommodations. This report may have placed the Detention Center on notice of Zapata’s disabilities.
The court concluded that the report created a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Detention Center had knowledge of Zapata’s disabilities. Additionally, the court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the counseling session provided by the Detention Center upon Zapata’s release from quarantine constituted a reasonable accommodation. The court noted that the determination of reasonableness is generally a fact issue and should be reserved for the trier of fact.
Based on these findings, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the case back to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas for further proceedings on Zapata’s Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims.
The 5th Circuits Ruling on the Hays County Juvenile Detention Center’s Actions Related to Civil Rights
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal of Zapata’s constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights by the Detention Center. The district court granted summary judgment, ruling that Littlejohn, the Detention Center’s administrator, was not a policymaker for the purposes of Monell liability.
To establish a suit against a municipality under Monell v. Department of Social Services, plaintiffs must prove three elements: (1) a policymaker, (2) an official policy, and (3) a violation of constitutional rights driven by the policy or custom. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that Littlejohn did not possess the necessary final policymaking authority. The court emphasized that whether a particular official has final policymaking authority is determined by state law.
Based on prior precedent, the court determined that the Juvenile Board has the authority to establish official policy for a detention center run by a county, according to Texas state law. Therefore, unless the Hays County Juvenile Board delegated policymaking authority to Littlejohn, he cannot be considered the appropriate policymaker. The court highlighted that the Detention Center’s 2020 Policy and Procedure Manual explicitly states that it is subject to annual inspection and approval by the Juvenile Board. As the Detention Center and Littlejohn are accountable to the Juvenile Board regarding the policy in question, Littlejohn cannot have been delegated the necessary policymaking authority to support Zapata’s Monell claim.
Summary
In the case of Zapata v. Hays County Juvenile Detention Center, Emiliano Zapata, a 16-year-old detainee (at the time), alleged that he was deprived of educational and mental health services during his 48-day detention. After the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Zapata filed an appeal.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s decision. They remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Zapata’s claims under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act.
The appeal focused on three key issues. Firstly, the responsibility of providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to incarcerated children was determined to rest with the designated local education agency, not the detention facility itself. Secondly, the court acknowledged that there was a genuine dispute as to whether the detention center had knowledge of Zapata’s disabilities and if reasonable accommodations were provided. Lastly, the court agreed that Littlejohn, the detention center’s administrator, did not possess the necessary policymaking authority to be held liable for Zapata’s constitutional claims.
Overall, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision in part and remanded the case for further proceedings on the Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims. They also affirmed the dismissal of Zapata’s claims under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act.
Disclaimer
The publishing provided is a summary of the case of Zapata v. Hays County Juvenile Detention Center and is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to be legal advice or a substitute for professional legal opinions. The interpretation and application of laws can vary depending on specific circumstances, and legal opinions may differ. For a comprehensive understanding of the case or for legal advice, it is recommended to consult with a qualified attorney or legal professional.
A Couple of Our Other Reads
You may be interested in our publishing on two State Board of Pharmacy officers resigning to avoid termination.
Or you may find our publishing about a TABC officer resigning to avoid termination, of interest.
Follow Us on Social Media
If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.
FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News