U.S. Constitution or by federal law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has brought § 1983 claims against the school officials and municipal Defendants (Count III) and against Van Amburgh (Count IV). Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to allege a deprivation of any federally-protected right. Plaintiff alleges that Van Am-burgh’s sexual harassment deprived her of her right to bodily integrity, as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. It is beyond question that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to bodily integrity and that right “is necessarily violated when a state actor sexually abuses a schoolchild.... ” Doe v. Taylor Indep. Sch. Dist., 15 F.3d 443, 451-52 (5th Cir.1994); see also Stoneking v. Bradford Area Sch. Dist., 882 F.2d 720, 727 (3d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Doe v. D'Agostino, 367 F.Supp.2d 157, 172
recognizing stu dents right to be free of stateoccasioned damage to the students bodily integrity recognizing that the right to be free of stateoccasioned damage to a persons bodily integrity is protected by the fourteenth amendment guarantee of due process holding that schools have no duty under the due process clause to protect students from assaults by other students even where the school knew or should have known of the danger presented holding that transfer rule denying eligibility to students transferring from public to private schools did not violate the students rights to due process or equal protection of the laws as provided by the fourteenth amendment holding that a students right to bodily integrity under the fourteenth amendment encompasses a students right to be free from sexual assaults by his or her teachers