Castle v. Appalachian Technical College, 2011 WL 240719

Castle, a nursing student, was suspended from Appalachian Technical College's Nursing Program in August 2007 after alleged misconduct and protective speech about an instructor.
Castle alleged the suspension violated her First Amendment rights (retaliation by administrators) and due process rights (pre-suspension hearing), in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
The district court granted summary judgment to Thompson and Boteler on the First Amendment retaliation claim based on qualified immunity, and a jury awarded Castle damages on the due process claim before the court granted JMOL in the administrators' favor on qualified immunity grounds.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the administrators violated a clearly established right and whether qualified immunity shielded them from damages.
The panel vacated the prior opinion and issued this opinion to clarify the analysis and held the administrators were entitled to qualified immunity on both the First Amendment retaliation and the due process claims.
Castle had opportunities for hearings and appeals after suspension, but the court concluded that, under the facts, the pre-suspension hearing requirement was not clearly violated given qualified-immunity standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the administrators violate the First Amendment?	Castle contends protected speech led to retaliation via suspension.	Administrators acted with lawful, non-retaliatory motives and had a lawful basis for suspension.	Yes, but qualified immunity shields them.
Was the First Amendment right clearly established at the time?	Protected speech was a motivating factor in the suspension.	Even if motivated, a lawful motive existed and it would have been reasonable to suspend without the protected speech.	No clearly established violation; qualified immunity applies.
Did the administrators violate due process by failing to provide a pre-deprivation hearing?	Castle had a property interest in enrollment and deserved notice and a hearing before suspension.	Discretionary actions and prior discipline justified no pre-deprivation hearing.	Yes, but qualified immunity still applies because the right was not clearly established; appeal process was available.
Was there a clearly established due process right to an immediate appeals process in these facts?	Immediate appeal would have protected due process rights.	Appeal was available and sufficient under the circumstances.	No clear establishment that immediate appeal violated due process; qualified immunity applied.

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified-immunity framework (as originally stated))
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (pre-suspension hearing generally required for student expulsion)
Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (burden shifting in retaliation cases after protected conduct shown)
Dixon v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir.1961) (students have property interest and due process rights in school proceedings)
Nash v. Auburn Univ., 812 F.2d 655 (11th Cir.1987) (due process rights for students are not co-extensive with civil or criminal trials)
Foy v. Holston, 94 F.3d 1528 (11th Cir.1996) (standard for qualified immunity in government actions)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (clarified that Saucier two-step inquiry is not mandatory)
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir.1981) (adopts pre-1981 Fifth Circuit decisions as binding practice)