Tate Smith v. Odessa Junior College District, et a

Case: 12-50149 Document: 00512108536 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2013

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 10, 2013

No. 12-50149 Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

TATE SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

DESSIE DAVIS,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:11-CV-95

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this interlocutory appeal, Dessie Davis contests the denial of qualified

immunity against a due-process claim. That defense was presented in her

motion to dismiss Tate Smith’s amended complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (failure to state claim). That operative complaint

claimed, inter alia, violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Because Davis is entitled to such immunity for that claim, its denial is

*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published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.

Case: 12-50149 Document: 00512108536 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2013

No. 12-50149

REVERSED; on REMAND, the due-process claim against Davis is to be

dismissed.

I.

In addition to Davis, Odessa College, in Odessa, Texas, is a defendant.

The following factual statements are in Smith’s amended complaint.

In the summer of 2009, Smith enrolled in an introductory English course,

taught by Davis, at the college. Davis knew Smith was a football-scholarship

athlete at the University of New Mexico. He needed a passing grade in Davis’

class to maintain his scholarship and compete in the 2009 football season.

By 5 August 2009, Smith submitted to Davis a required research essay,

using Odessa College’s computer system: Blackboard. At 9:06 a.m. on 5 August,

Davis e-mailed Smith that she could not open the file due to the file type; he was

instructed: “[R]eread the instructions for the assignment. If you want to turn

it [in] by 5pm today, email me a request to clear this submission. The highest

grade possible will be a 70.” At 2:43 p.m. that day, Smith e-mailed Davis his

paper. She replied at 3:29 p.m.: “Do not email me your essay; if you would like

to submit it via Blackboard, let me know and I will clear your first attempt.”

Very early the next day, at 12:17 a.m., Smith e-mailed Davis to apologize for

misunderstanding, and requested permission to re-submit. Davis replied that

afternoon at 12:38 p.m.: “I am not re-opening the assignment in Blackboard. I

will decide what to do with the emailed copy.”

Davis reduced Smith’s assignment-grade because she deemed the paper

late, which resulted in Smith’s failing the class. Smith filed a grievance through

the college’s appeal procedure. The appeals committee conducted a hearing in

October 2009, and subsequently denied the appeal.

2

Case: 12-50149 Document: 00512108536 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/10/2013

No. 12-50149

In August 2011, Smith filed this action in state court against Davis and

Odessa Junior College District d/b/a Odessa College, claiming: (1) violation of

due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; and (2) breach of contract under

state law. Following removal to federal court, the college moved to dismiss,

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It and Davis

also moved to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. The district court denied the motions without

prejudice and, sua sponte, ordered Smith to re-plead. In his amended complaint,

he alleged defendants’ actions caused him, inter alia: loss of income for the

payment of tuition, fees, and college expenses at the University of New Mexico;

mental anguish and pain and suffering from being unable to play football at that

university during the 2009 season; and loss of potential earnings through a

professional football contract.

The college again moved to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). It and

Davis also again moved to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). In doing so, Davis

again claimed qualified immunity against the due-process claim.

In February 2012, the district court dismissed Smith’s breach-of-contract

claim against defendants, but denied dismissal of the due-process claim. In

doing so, the court referenced, but did not address, Davis’ qualified-immunity

defense. Smith v. Odessa Junior Coll. Dist., et al., No. MO-11-CV-095 (W.D. Tex.

11 Feb. 2012).

II.

At issue in this interlocutory appeal is only whether Davis is entitled to

qualified immunity against the due-process claim that remains pending in this

action. (Again, the court dismissed the breach-of-contract claim against Davis

3

Case: 12-50149 Document: 00512108536 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/10/2013

No. 12-50149

and the college.) The denial of qualified immunity, to the extent it turns on an

issue of law, is appealable as a “final decision” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

“notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment”. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S.

511, 530 (1985).

The court’s not awarding qualified immunity to Davis against the due-

process claim, pursuant to her Rule 12(b)(6) motion, is reviewed de novo. E.g.,

Morgan v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359, 370 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc). “In so doing,

we must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and draw all reasonable inferences

in favor of the nonmoving party.” Id. On the other hand, Smith has the burden

of demonstrating inapplicability of such immunity. E.g., Cantrell v. City of

Murphy, 666 F.3d 911, 918 (5th Cir. 2012).

The purpose of the qualified-immunity doctrine is to shield government

officials not only from personal liability, but from suit as well, “when their

actions could reasonably have been believed to be legal”. Morgan, 659 F.3d at

370-71; see Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 (“The entitlement is an immunity from suit

rather than a mere defense to liability; . . . it is effectively lost if a case is

erroneously permitted to go to trial.”) (emphasis in original). In that regard,

“pre-existing law must dictate, that is, truly compel (not just suggest or allow or

raise a question about), the conclusion for every like-situated, reasonable

government agent that what defendant is doing violates federal law in the

circumstances”. Pasco v. Knoblauch, 566 F.3d 572, 578-79 (5th Cir. 2009)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis in original). This

standard protects the balance between upholding constitutional or statutory

rights and ensuring government officials can effectively perform their duties, by

4

Case: 12-50149 Document: 00512108536 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/10/2013

No. 12-50149

“reasonably [] anticipat[ing] when their conduct may give rise to liability”. Davis

v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 195 (1984).

Therefore, a government official’s personal liability for a claimed unlawful

action turns on the “‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in

[the] light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was

taken”. Shaboon v. Duncan, 252 F.3d 722, 728-29 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting

Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987)). To defeat the qualified

immunity asserted in the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Smith must show: (1) he stated

well-pleaded facts that Davis did not provide due process under the Fourteenth

Amendment; and (2) her challenged conduct was objectively unreasonable in the

light of clearly established law at the time of that conduct. E.g., Morgan, 659

F.3d at 371; Brumfield v. Hollins, 551 F.3d 322, 326 (5th Cir. 2008).

Courts have discretion to decide which of these two prongs to address first,

in the light of the particular circumstances. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223,

236 (2009). First reviewing the second prong (objectively unreasonable conduct

vel non) is often preferable, as it “comports with [the] usual reluctance to decide

constitutional questions unnecessarily”. Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088,

2093 (2012) (citation omitted).

To satisfy the second prong, Smith “must be able to point to controlling

authority—or a robust consensus of persuasive authority—that defines the

contours of the right in question with a high degree of particularity”. Morgan,

659 F.3d at 371-72 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Where no

controlling authority specifically prohibits a defendant’s conduct[,] . . . the law

cannot be said to be clearly established. . . . [G]eneralizations and abstract

propositions are not capable of clearly establishing the law”. Id. at 372. While

5

Case: 12-50149 Document: 00512108536 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/10/2013

No. 12-50149

there need not be a decision directly on point, “existing precedent must have

placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate”. Ashcroft v. Al-

Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2083 (2011) (emphasis added).

Davis asserts Smith fails to satisfy the second prong because, when Davis

assigned Smith’s grade, it was not clearly established he had a property or

liberty interest in the outcome of a dispute concerning it. In response, Smith

asserts: Davis arbitrarily treated Smith’s paper as tardy when he timely filed

it on Blackboard; and, therefore, such treatment was objectively unreasonable.

He also contends this treatment constituted a violation of due process under the

Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived “of

life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. U.S. Const. amend. XIV,

§ 1. “To be entitled to the procedural protections of the Fourteenth

Amendment”, Smith must demonstrate he was “deprived [] of either a ‘liberty’

or a ‘property’ interest”. Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S.

78, 82 (1978). For example, property interests are created, and their dimensions

defined, “by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent

source such as state law-rules or understandings that secure certain benefits

and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits”. Bd. of Regents v. Roth,

408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972).

Smith claims he had a property interest in: the summer 2009 English

course; the grade he received in it; and obtaining a four-year education. He

claims a liberty interest in: his good name; his reputation; and continuing to

play football for the University of New Mexico.

6

Case: 12-50149 Document: 00512108536 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/10/2013

No. 12-50149

Most case law involving due process in the educational setting concerns

student dismissals or suspensions from academic institutions. In such

circumstances, the Supreme Court has held students are afforded limited due-

process protections, in the form of “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’”. Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 86 (quoting Goss v. Lopez, 419

U.S. 565, 584 (1975)). The Court also recognized there is a “significant difference

between the failure of a student to meet academic standards and the violation

by a student of valid rules of conduct[,] . . . [which] calls for far less stringent

procedural requirements in the case of an academic dismissal”. Id.

The Court has not held college academic decisions implicate property or

liberty interests, entitling a student to constitutional due-process protections.

Accordingly, our court has followed suit. For example, to the extent our court

has addressed this issue, it has held a student who is not denied access to public

education does not have a property or liberty interest implicated. E.g., Nevares

v. San Marcos Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 111 F.3d 25, 26 (5th Cir. 1997) (no

property or liberty interest implicated in transfer from one school program to

another with stricter discipline because student never denied access to public

education, even temporarily, such as through suspension or expulsion); cf. Goss,

419 U.S. at 576 (student’s “total exclusion from the educational process for more

than a trivial period” triggers possible violation of property or liberty interest).

We have “also rejected arguments that there is any protected interest in the

separate components of the educational process”. Nevares, 111 F.3d at 27

(emphasis added); e.g., Jeffrey v. Bd. of Trustees of Bells ISD, 261 F. Supp. 2d

7

Case: 12-50149 Document: 00512108536 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/10/2013

No. 12-50149

719, 726 (E.D. Tex. 2003) (no property interest in right to take high-school

Spanish course at different time; “it is only when a student is excluded from the

entire educational system that due process must be afforded”), aff’d, 96 F. App’x

248 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curium). Other circuits have been similarly cautious.

E.g., Hennessy v. City of Melrose, 194 F.3d 237, 249-52 (1st Cir. 1999) (because

Supreme Court has not decided whether university student has constitutionally-

protected property interest in continued enrollment, court assumed interest and

held no violation because hearing not required for academic sanctions); Trotter

v. Regents of Univ. of N.M., 219 F.3d 1179, 1184 (10th Cir. 2000) (no due-process

violation because hearing not required for academic sanctions); Schuler v. Univ.

of Minn., 788 F.2d 510, 514 (8th Cir. 1986) (full procedural safeguards of

Fourteenth Amendment inapplicable where student dismissed from state

university for academic reasons). Smith has neither alleged denial of access to

an education, even on a temporary basis, nor placed in legitimate doubt the

academic nature of Davis’ actions.

Rather than determine whether a student has a particular property or

liberty interest, the common practice has been the above-discussed

constitutional avoidance, comporting with the “usual reluctance to decide

constitutional questions unnecessarily”. Reichle, 132 S. Ct. at 2093 (citation

omitted); see, e.g., Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 223 (1985)

(assumed property or liberty interest in continued enrollment); Davis v. Mann,

882 F.2d 967, 973 (5th Cir. 1989) (declined to decide whether plaintiff had liberty

or property interest in residency program); Mahavongsanan v. Hall, 529 F.2d

448, 449-50 (5th Cir. 1976) (“[W]e know of no case which holds that colleges and

universities are subject to the supervision or review of the courts in the uniform

8

Case: 12-50149 Document: 00512108536 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/10/2013

No. 12-50149

application of their academic standards”.) (quoting Wright v. Tex. S. Univ., 392

F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir. 1968)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

As stated, for our analysis of the second prong of the qualified-immunity

test, the objective reasonableness of Davis’ actions must be viewed in the light

of then clearly-established law. Needless to say, the law was not clearly

established. The limited case law related to the matter, discussed above, does

not “truly compel . . . the conclusion for every like-situated, reasonable

government agent that what [Davis has allegedly done] violates [constitutional

due process] in the circumstances”. Pasco, 566 F.3d at 578-79 (citation omitted)

(emphasis in original). In short, Smith’s asserted property or liberty interests

were not established “beyond debate”; therefore, Davis is entitled to qualified

immunity. Ashcroft, 131 S. Ct. at 2083.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the denial of qualified immunity to Davis

against the due-process claim is REVERSED; on REMAND, that claim against

Davis is to be dismissed.

9