# Laney v. Farley

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · August 28, 2007 · 501 F.3d 577

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634173

## Case

- **Full name:** William LANEY, Individually; Victoria Laney, a Minor Child by Father, and as Next Friend, William Laney, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. Jim FARLEY, Individually and in His Capacity as Principal of West Wilson Middle School; Laura Honeyman, Individually and in Her Capacity as Assistant Principal of West Wilson Middle School, Defendants, Wilson County Board of Education, Defendant—Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 28, 2007
- **Citations:** 501 F.3d 577; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20553; 2007 WL 2416177
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gibbons
- **Judges:** Suhrheinrich, Gibbons, Heyburn
- **Cited by:** 357 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634173

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an in-school suspension, even where students are provided with educational instruction, can violate due process *248when it "so isolates a student from educational opportunities that it infringes her property interest in an education"
- recognizing that “[a]llegations of state law or state constitutional violations will not support a § 1983 claim.
- holding that a failure to follow a policy directive does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation because a policy directive does not create a constitutional right or protectable liberty interest
- finding that a violation of the Wilson County Board of Education’s policy granting students notice before suspension would not support a Section 1983 claim

## Opinion text

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority opinion’s thorough analysis and agree that the district court should have granted defendant WCBE’s motion to dismiss but write separately to emphasize that imposing an in-school suspension, even of short duration, without procedural safeguards could conceivably violate due process under different facts. The Tennessee statutes apparently contemplate that students receiving in-school suspensions complete academic requirements. The complaint fails to allege any educational detriment suffered by Victoria Laney that could amount to deprivation of a property interest or any repu-tational harm that might amount to deprivation of a liberty interest. There is no allegation of any sort of loss that could be categorized as more than de minimis. Here, the assertions of a constitutional violation are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634173. Public record. Not legal advice.