holding that a graduate student dropped from a required course could not raise a procedural due process claim because “several Florida Administrative Code sections and state court decisions indicat[ed] that [the student] could seek relief for his procedural deprivations in state court”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a graduate student dropped from a required course could not raise a procedural due process claim because “several Florida Administrative Code sections and state court decisions indicat[ed] that [the student] could seek relief for his procedural deprivations in state court”
- finding that a district court correctly dismissed a plaintiff’s procedural due process claim because he did not present “any reason to believe that he could not receive a procedural remedy through a state court proceeding”
- explaining that at the pleading stage, the plaintiff need only set forth “enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest” that the elements of the claim are met (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 )
- describing that Twombly does not “impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage” but rather “simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of’ a necessary element
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HILL, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
My colleagues debate well. Concluding that the complaint does not affirmatively show that the appellant may not have a case, I concur in the opinion prepared for us by Judge Carnes.
Now, perhaps, the fact contentions will be developed and, if they should not be in dispute, the court can rule on existing, and not merely alleged, facts. Then, that ruling will determine something of value to the litigants — the resolution of the disagreement.
That is, after all, what the judicial branch is said to be about.