Page 1
Woman Barred From Classes for 14 Months Has No Due-Process Claim—Ninth Circuit
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday upheld the dismissal with prejudice of a civil rights action brought by a graduate student at Sonoma State University who, with no hearing being held in advance, was barred from classes while an investigation was conducted into allegations of sexual misconduct.
The probe stretched over 14 months, the plaintiff, identified as “Jane Doe,” said in her complaint, alleging that her right to due process was abridged.
California law, which governs in the case, does not clearly recognize a “property interest” in attending classes, a memorandum opinion declares. It also says the facts do not give rise to a claim based on a “stigma” having been created.
Three-Judge Panel
A panel—comprised of Circuit Judges Ronald M. Gould and Michelle T. Friedland and Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace—said:
“Some California appellate courts have recognized a contractual relationship between students and universities, and Doe argues this contractual relationship creates a property interest….Although these cases have persuasive value, they do not put the existence of a property interest ‘beyond debate.’ ”
The opinion pointed to, and rejected, the holdings in two 1972 Court of Appeal opinions: Zumbrun v. University of Southern California, decided by this district’s Div. Five, and Andersen v. Regents of University of California, from the First District’s Div. Four.
“The California Supreme Court itself has never held that the relationship between students and universities sounds in contract,” the opinion notes, adding that, “[t]o the contrary, it has expressed concern” in its 1979 decision in Paulsen v. Golden Gate University that ‘the framing of the student-university relationship in contractual terms...incorrectly portrays the manner in which the parties themselves view the relationship.”
Given that “California law remains unsettled,” a claim based on a purported property interest cannot be maintained, the judges said.
‘Stigma-Plus’ Test
They recognized that a liberty interest, protected by the Due Process Clause, exists where the “stigma-plus” test is met, which entails a stigma from governmental action plus interference with a right established by state law. But Doe stated no such claim, they concluded, because she did not allege a public disclosure of facts about her and did not plead “a sufficient ‘plus’ factor,” alleging a “mere reputational injury.”
In her complaint, Doe alleged:
“Defendants deprived Doe of the ability to finish her Masters degree. Defendants informed Doe three days before the commencement of her second year of school that she could not attend classes until the investigation was completed. The investigation—of what should have been an open-and-shut case because the allegations were plainly baseless—was not completed until what would have been the end of Doe’s second and final year.”
She added:
“On August 22, 2018, three months after Doe would have completed her Masters degree, and a year after telling her she couldn’t attend her second year of classes, Sonoma State found Doe not responsible for the alleged misconduct. From start to finish, the so-called investigation of an obviously frivolous complaint took 15 months. During that entire time. Doe could not go to school.”
The case is Doe v. White, 20-15450.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company