Pro Se Representation Limits and Pleading Standards in §1983 and Federal Anti-Discrimination Actions

Introduction

Wells v. East Baton Rouge School System, decided May 28, 2025 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, concerns Kelvin Wells, a pro se litigant who brought a § 1983 civil-rights action on his own behalf and purportedly on behalf of his three adult children. He alleged fourteen years of discrimination, retaliation, and harassment by the East Baton Rouge School System, a school coach (Keith Woods), and the Mentorship Helix Academy. His claims invoked Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and Title IX of the Education Amendments. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; on appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, clarifying both the capacity of pro se plaintiffs to represent others and the pleading requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and federal anti-discrimination statutes.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Wells’s complaint. It held (1) Wells, a non-lawyer, cannot represent his adult children in federal court; (2) the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over his § 1983 action, but his complaint fails to allege facts supporting any federal statutory claim; and (3) dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate where a complaint does not plead the essential elements of ADA, Title VI, Title VII, or Title IX claims. Wells’s vague assertion that he is a “Disabled Black Veteran” and his failure to allege discriminatory intent, an employment relationship, or sex-based animus were each fatal. The court affirmed the dismissal without prejudice.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Weber v. Garza, 570 F.2d 511 (5th Cir. 1978): Established that pro se litigants cannot represent the legal interests of others in federal court.
• Walch v. Adjutant Gen.’s Dep’t, 533 F.3d 289 (5th Cir. 2008): Confirmed that a parent may not sue on behalf of an adult child under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c).
• Raskin ex rel. JD v. Dallas ISD, 69 F.4th 280 (5th Cir. 2023): Carved out a narrow exception allowing a pro se parent to pursue a child’s own claims when the parent’s personal rights are also directly implicated.
• Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946): Articulated the standard for subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1983.
• Morrison v. National Austl. Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010): Permitted courts to address Rule 12(b)(6) in lieu of jurisdictional labels when a complaint fails to state a claim.
• Winder v. Gallardo, 118 F.4th 638 (5th Cir. 2024): Set out the elements of an ADA Title II claim.
• Rollerson v. Brazos River Harbor Navigation Dist., 6 F.4th 633 (5th Cir. 2021): Explained Title VI requires proof of intentional discrimination by a federal-funded entity.
• Body by Cook, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 869 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2017): Clarified that Title VII presupposes an employment relationship.
• Sanches v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD, 647 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. 2011): Held Title IX requires harassment “on the basis of sex.”
• Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (1979): Confirmed § 1983 covers only deprivations of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Legal Reasoning

The Fifth Circuit’s decision proceeds in three steps:

1. Capacity and Representation: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1654 and Weber, non-lawyer pro se litigants may only represent themselves. Because Wells’s children are adults, he cannot litigate their claims, and those counts were dismissed.
2. Jurisdiction vs. Merits: The court clarified that, although the district court labeled its decision as a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), the proper basis was failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). It applied Bell v. Hood and Morrison to reach the merits without remanding.
3. Pleading Deficiencies: For each statute, the court found Wells failed to plead the required elements:
   • ADA (Title II): No facts showing a qualifying disability or discrimination “by reason of” that disability.
   • Title VI: No allegation of intentional discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.
   • Title VII: No employment relationship with any defendant.
   • Title IX: No facts indicating sex-based harassment or animus.

Impact

This decision reinforces important procedural and substantive lessons:

• Strict Capacity Limits: Pro se litigants must obtain counsel to represent adult family members. Failing to do so results in mandatory dismissal.
• Pleading Precision: Plaintiffs must plead specific facts satisfying each element of their claims; boilerplate references to federal statutes are insufficient.
• Rule 12(b)(6) Clarification: Lower courts and litigants should apply Rule 12(b)(6) to test the sufficiency of pleadings rather than mislabel it as a jurisdictional defect.
• Deterrent to Frivolous Filings: The court’s requirement that Wells obtain leave before filing new actions signals a tougher stance on repeat pro se litigants whose complaints consistently fail to state a claim.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Pro Se Representation: 28 U.S.C. § 1654 allows individuals to represent themselves, but not others. A non-lawyer cannot act as an attorney for someone else.

Rule 12(b)(1) vs. Rule 12(b)(6): Rule 12(b)(1) challenges subject-matter jurisdiction (whether the court can hear the case at all). Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint’s allegations to state a legal claim, assuming jurisdiction exists.

Essential Elements of Common Civil-Rights Claims:

• ADA Title II: Disability, denial of benefits, causation “by reason of” the disability.
• Title VI: Intentional discrimination by an entity receiving federal funds.
• Title VII: Existence of an employment relationship and discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, etc.
• Title IX: Harassment “on the basis of sex” in educational programs.

Conclusion

Wells v. East Baton Rouge School System crystallizes two key precedents: non-lawyer pro se plaintiffs cannot pursue claims on behalf of adult children, and plaintiffs must plead every element of federal civil-rights statutes with factual specificity. By affirming dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the Fifth Circuit underscores the importance of precise, fact-based complaints and proper legal representation for multiple parties. This decision will guide district courts in screening pro se civil-rights actions and deter litigants from relying on conclusory statements without factual support.