Christiansen v. West Branch Community School District
674 F.3d 927
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Christiansen, Iowa educator, sued West Branch schools and others in state court for state-law and §1983 due process claims after termination.
- H.M.K., a student, accused Christiansen; the Kobers reported the accusation to school officials and police; Knoop relayed information due to her relationship with Teresa Kob er.
- A private pre-termination hearing was conducted; Christiansen was terminated February 12, 2009; criminal charges followed but he was acquitted.
- The case was removed to federal court; Kobers did not sign the removal notice but later consented to removal within 30 days via consent to removal.
- District court denied remand, dismissed §1983 claims, and remanded state-law claims; the appeal challenged remand denial and §1983 dismissals.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal was proper without unanimous consent | Kobers did not timely consent within 30 days | Consent was sufficiently indicated by Kobers' motion to dismiss incorporating West Branch's brief and later consent | Unanimity satisfied; removal proper under facts |
| Whether district court properly dismissed procedural due process claims | Exhaustion not required for §1983; pre-termination rights asserted | Pre- and post-termination processes analyzed; failure to exhaust post-termination remedies; pre-termination claims inadequately pleaded | Affirmed dismissal for post-termination claims; pre-termination claims insufficiently pleaded |
| Whether district court properly dismissed substantive due process claims | West Branch knew accusations were false; due process violated | Allegations were conclusory; no plausible showing of outrageous conduct | Dismissal affirmed; complaint failed to plead a plausible substantive due process claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard requires plausible claims)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state plausible entitlement to relief)
- Patsy v. Bd. of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1982) (exhaustion prerequisite discussed)
- Keating v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist., 562 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2009) (exhaustion/pre-deprivation process distinction)
- Winskowski v. City of Stephen, 442 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2006) (pre-termination due process; post-termination remedies)
- Riggins v. Bd. of Regents, 790 F.2d 707 (8th Cir. 1986) (waiver of procedural due process right by not pursuing post-termination remedies)
- Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 590 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2009) (unanimity consent can be satisfied by non-signing co-defendant's indirect consent)
- Harper v. AutoAlliance Int'l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2004) (unanimity doctrine examples for removal)
- Pritchett v. Cottrell, Inc., 512 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2008) (timely written indication of consent to removal)
- Coleman v. Reed, 147 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 1998) (delay not required for pre-termination due process)