Dietchweiler Ex Rel. Dietchweiler v. Lucas
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11770
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Student Noah Dietchweiler was suspended 10 days by Watseka High School administrators after another student (M.M.) admitted distributing prescription Ativan and listed Noah as a recipient.
- Administrators interviewed Noah; he denied knowledge, was presented with a suspension form that listed “possession of drugs” and “consumption of drugs,” and was allegedly given a choice between admitting (10‑day suspension) or denying (expulsion); he said “whatever,” signed the form, and left.
- Noah took a supervised drug test the same day; results were negative for benzodiazepines; the school initially ignored the test and advised his father to use the appeal procedure.
- At a board suspension‑review hearing (with counsel and testimony from Noah and his parents), the board upheld the suspension, finding possession (focused on Jan. 24 rather than Jan. 25).
- Noah sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of procedural due process and asserted state claims (IIED, slander, Illinois School Code). The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the federal due process claim and dismissed state claims without prejudice; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Noah was denied constitutionally adequate pre‑suspension process for a ≤10‑day suspension | Noah: administrators gave only vague notice, coerced a confession by threatening expulsion, and did not explain evidence; thus no real opportunity to be heard | Defendants: Noah received oral notice of the charges, a written suspension form, opportunity to speak, and parents were informed | Court: Goss minimal procedures satisfied — oral/written notice and opportunity to present his side were provided |
| Whether the post‑suspension review hearing was a sham (predetermined or biased) | Noah: board ignored exculpatory drug test, changed the charged date to deny fair defense; hearing effectively pretextual | Defendants: board heard both sides, asked questions, considered evidence including testimony and drug test; no proof of predecided outcome | Court: hearing was not a sham; plaintiff had a meaningful opportunity to be heard and to present evidence |
| Whether variance in date (Jan. 24 vs Jan. 25) deprived Noah of due process | Noah: notice suggested Jan. 25; switching to Jan. 24 prevented focused defense and prejudiced him | Defendants: suspension notice did not explicitly limit the date; evidence at hearing was relevant to either date; Noah could present his defense | Court: variance did not prejudice Noah; the evidence was equally relevant and he was able to present his case |
| Whether state law/procedural violations (School Code, policies) create federal due process claims | Noah: violations of Illinois School Code and school procedures deprived him of required process | Defendants: failure to follow state law/policies does not equate to a federal constitutional violation | Court: state law/procedure breaches are not per se federal due process violations; court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (Due process requires oral or written notice of charges, explanation of evidence if charges denied, and opportunity to present the student’s side for suspensions ≤10 days)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Morrisey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (once due process applies, inquiry is what process is due)
- Joint Anti‑Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (a hearing must be real, not a sham)
- Pugel v. Bd. of Tr. of Univ. of Ill., 378 F.3d 659 (notice and opportunity to be heard are the hallmarks of procedural due process)
- Piggie v. Cotton, 342 F.3d 660 (post‑deprivation administrative remedies can cure limited pre‑deprivation process)