Taylor v. College

Case: 26-40012 Document: 36-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals No. 26-40012 Fifth Circuit

Summary Calendar FILED ____________ September 10, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce Joey Taylor, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Collin College, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CV-584 ______________________________ Before Jones, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Joey Taylor alleges that Collin County Community College District (the College) violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against him based on his sexual orientation. Taylor, who is gay, was a student at the College at the time of the incidents in question. He asserts that Professor Paul Belk discriminated Case: 26-40012 Document: 36-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2026

No. 26-40012 against him when Belk refused to answer Taylor’s questions during class, gave Taylor a zero on an assignment, and filed a student incident report against him following an email exchange in which Taylor engaged in threatening behavior. In addition to alleging that Belk personally discriminated against him, Taylor asserts that the College acted with deliberate indifference by failing independently to investigate Taylor’s complaint.

Upon Taylor’s requests, the College provided information on how to pursue a Title IX complaint. This included informing Taylor of his right to file a complaint and a grade appeal, requesting that Taylor provide all communications between him and Belk, and coordinating a meeting with Title IX officers. Taylor failed to pursue any of the foregoing avenues or to exhaust administrative remedies.

The district court granted summary judgment for the College. The court concluded that Taylor lacked standing to bring his Title IX claim because he failed to substantiate a fact dispute on the existence of a redressable injury. Alternatively, the court determined that even if he had standing, Taylor failed to show a fact dispute of as to several elements of his Title IX claim. Specifically, Taylor failed to identify an official policy or custom of discrimination, failed to establish deliberate indifference, and failed to identify similarly situated students who were treated differently than he was. The court similarly concluded that Taylor’s due process claims failed as a matter of law.

We have carefully considered this appeal in light of the briefs and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we find no error that would affect the judgment of the district court. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for substantially the same reasons articulated by that court.