Robert Willis v. Texas Tech Univ Hlth Sci Ctr, et al

Filing

Robert Willis v. Texas Tech Univ Hlth Sci Ctr, et al

Doc. 0

Case: 10-50300

Document: 00511221245

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/01/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-50300 S u m m a r y Calendar September 1, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

R O B E R T WILLIS, Plaintiff - Appellant v. T E X A S TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER; TEXAS TECH U N IV E R S I T Y HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER SCHOOL OF ALLIED HEALTH S C I E N C E S ; TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY SYSTEM; KENT HANCE, I n d iv id u a lly and in His Official Capacity as Chancellor of the Texas Tech U n iv e r s it y Health Sciences Center and School of Allied Health Sciences; PAUL B R O O K E , Individually and in His Official Capacity as Dean of the Texas Tech U n iv e r s it y Health Sciences Center School of Allied Health; ELMO CAVIN, I n d iv id u a lly and in His Official Capacity as President of the Texas Tech U n iv e r s it y Health Sciences Center; ELVIN MAXWELL, Individually and in His O ffic ia l Capacity, Defendants - Appellees

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas U S D C No. 7:09-CV-117

B e fo r e HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* T e x a s Tech University Health Sciences Center expelled Robert Willis after
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-50300

Document: 00511221245

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/01/2010

No. 10-50300 it s Student Conduct Board found that Willis had threatened his ex-girlfriend ­ a fellow student ­ with a handgun. Willis claimed his disciplinary hearing did n o t meet the minimum requirements of due process. The district court disagreed a n d granted summary judgment to the Texas Tech defendants. Willis appealed, a n d we affirm. A fte r allegations surfaced that Willis had pointed a 9mm pistol at a c l a s s m a t e while the two argued at Willis's off-campus residence, Texas Tech's S t u d e n t Conduct Board sent Willis a detailed letter explaining that a complaint h a d been filed against him. The letter notified Willis of a hearing date and in c lu d e d : the factual basis for the complaint; the portions of the Student Code a lle g e d ly violated; a list of the Board members and an opportunity to challenge t h e m for partiality; and an explanation of how to submit evidence, call witnesses in his behalf, and secure an advisor. T h e Board held the hearing, at which Willis stated his position but called n o witnesses, and determined that Willis had in fact pulled a gun on a fellow s t u d e n t . He was expelled. Willis sued Texas Tech and its administrators in s t a t e court for violating his federal due process rights, but the defendants r e m o v e d to the Western District of Texas, where they moved for summary ju d g m e n t . The district court ­ noting that Willis did not submit any evidence to r e fu t e Tech's motion ­ assumed Willis had a protected right to his education but h e ld that Tech gave Willis all the process he was due. Willis appealed. Our r e v ie w is de novo, applying the same standards as the district court and viewing t h e evidence in the light most favorable to Willis.1 T h is court recently dealt with a similar case, one in which Louisiana State

1

Jackson v. Cal-W. Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374, 377 (5th Cir. 2010).

2

Case: 10-50300

Document: 00511221245

Page: 3

Date Filed: 09/01/2010

No. 10-50300 U n iv e r s it y disciplined a student for allegedly harassing his ex-girlfriend. We e x p la in e d in a persuasive unpublished opinion:

A student subject to school disciplinary proceedings is entitled to s o m e procedural due process. The student must be given notice of t h e charges against him, an explanation of what evidence exists a g a in s t him, and "an opportunity to present his side of the story." The student is not entitled to the "opportunity to secure counsel, to c o n fr o n t and cross-examine witnesses supporting the charge, or to c a ll his own witnesses to verify his version of the incident." 2 W illis 's cursory appellate brief fails to explain what about the hearing was d e f ic i e n t . An independent review of the undisputed record shows Tech gave W illis more than the minimum process required by the Constitution. AFFIRMED.

Esfeller v. O'Keefe, 2010 WL 3035144, at *5, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 16178, at *12­*13 (5th Cir. Aug. 3, 2010) (citing Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 574, 581, 583 (1975)); see also Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 85­86 (1978) ("All that Goss required was an `informal give-and-take' between the student and the administrative body dismissing him that would, at least, give the student `the opportunity to characterize his conduct and put it in what he deems the proper context.'" (quoting Goss, 419 U.S. at 584)); Dixon v. Ala. State Bd. of Educ., 294 F.2d 150, 158­59 (5th Cir. 1961) ("For . . . guidance . . . , we state our views on the nature of the notice and hearing required by due process prior to expulsion from a state college or university. . . . The notice should contain a statement of the specific charges and grounds which, if proven, would justify expulsion under the regulations of the Board of Education. . . . By its nature, a charge of misconduct, as opposed to a failure to meet the scholastic standards of the college, depends upon a collection of the facts concerning the charged misconduct, easily colored by the point of view of the witnesses. In such circumstances, a hearing which gives the Board or the administrative authorities of the college an opportunity to hear both sides in considerable detail is best suited to protect the rights of all involved. This is not to imply that a full-dress judicial hearing, with the right to cross-examine witnesses, is required. Such a hearing, with the attending publicity and disturbance of college activities, might be detrimental to the college's educational atmosphere and impractical to carry out. Nevertheless, the rudiments of an adversary proceeding may be preserved without encroaching upon the interests of the college.").

2

3