Osteen v. Henley case brief summary
13 F.3d 221 (1993)
CASE FACTS
After disciplinary proceedings were initiated based on charges that plaintiff former student broke two other students' noses, plaintiff pleaded guilty to the charges, a hearing was held, and plaintiff was expelled for two years. Contending that the disciplinary proceeding did not provide due process, plaintiff sought both reinstatement, with or without the restoration of his football scholarship, and damages from defendant university officials.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff former student's due process claim. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred plaintiff from recovering damages against defendant university officials in their official capacities and that plaintiff had no constitutional right to have counsel represent him in a student disciplinary proceeding.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law
Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
13 F.3d 221 (1993)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff former student appealed a
judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, which dismissed the action that plaintiff
brought alleging that his expulsion amounted to a deprivation of
property without due process of law in violation of U.S. Const.amend. XIV. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and damages from
defendant university officials in both their individual and official
capacities.CASE FACTS
After disciplinary proceedings were initiated based on charges that plaintiff former student broke two other students' noses, plaintiff pleaded guilty to the charges, a hearing was held, and plaintiff was expelled for two years. Contending that the disciplinary proceeding did not provide due process, plaintiff sought both reinstatement, with or without the restoration of his football scholarship, and damages from defendant university officials.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing plaintiff's action.
- The court held that plaintiff could not recover against defendants in their official capacities because 705 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/8(d) confined such damage suits to the state court of claims.
- The court determined that defendants' failure to comply with all the requirements of the student judicial code did not constitute a denial of due process.
- The court also ruled that plaintiff was not denied the right to consult with counsel and that U.S. Constitutional amendment XIV did not entitle plaintiff to be represented in the disciplinary proceeding by a lawyer who was permitted to perform all the functions that a trial lawyer in adversarial litigation could.
The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff former student's due process claim. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred plaintiff from recovering damages against defendant university officials in their official capacities and that plaintiff had no constitutional right to have counsel represent him in a student disciplinary proceeding.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law
Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment