Castle v. Appalachian Technical College
2010 WL 5158157
11th Cir.2010Background
- Castle, a former nursing student at Appalachian Technical College, sued Thompson and Boteler under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming First Amendment retaliation and due process violations.
- Castle alleges the suspension from the Nursing Program was in retaliation for reporting an instructor’s attendance falsification.
- The August 24, 2007 suspension followed an investigation and a written appeal, with a committee upholding a suspension for the remainder of the year.
- The district court granted summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim based on qualified immunity; the due process claim proceeded to trial, resulting in a jury verdict for Castle but a later judgment as a matter of law for the defendants on qualified immunity grounds.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s qualified-immunity rulings for Thompson and Boteler, concluding the officials reasonably could have believed their actions did not violate Castle’s rights.
- The court also held Castle was entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing, but found the pre-suspension hearing requirement not clearly established as violated under the facts, and affirmed qualified immunity on that basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the retaliation claim violated the First Amendment | Castle contends protected speech prompted suspension. | Thompson/Boteler argue actions were not motivated by protected speech or were justified by other conduct. | No violation; qualified immunity. |
| Whether the administrators violated Castle’s due process rights by suspending without a pre-deprivation hearing | Castle asserts a pre-suspension hearing was required and denied. | Administrators claim no pre-deprivation hearing was necessary given circumstances. | Violated due process, but qualified immunity preserved. |
| Whether the pre-suspension due process issue was clearly established for qualified immunity | Castle argues the law clearly required more process. | No clearly established rule that immediate appeals could suffice. | Not clearly established; qualified immunity affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (newly developed qualified immunity framework)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step inquiry for qualified immunity)
- Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (burden-shifting test for causation in retaliation claims)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (pre-suspension hearing generally required for students)
- Dixon v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 294 F.2d 150 (1961) (due process rights of students in disciplinary proceedings)
- Nash v. Auburn Univ., 812 F.2d 655 (1987) (student due process rights are not co-extensive with civil trial rights)
- Hill v. Bd. of Trs. of Mich. State Univ., 182 F. Supp. 2d 621 (2001) (illustrative cases on pre-suspension hearing/ safety considerations)
- Picozzi v. Sandalow, 623 F. Supp. 1571 (1986) (pre-suspension hearing not always required in safety contexts)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (1981) (binding pre-1981 Fifth Circuit decisions adopted by Eleventh Circuit)