712 F. App'x 360
5th Cir.2017Background
- Pham, a third-year pharmacy student, was expelled after two cheating incidents at ULM.
- First incident (2015): administrators alleged cheating, notices were given, and a Board of Ethics hearing recommended a zero and probation.
- Pham apologized in a letter; Dean adopted the Board’s recommendation; Vice President affirmed the decision, placing Pham on probation.
- Second incident: Pham allegedly used unauthorized materials; hearing was granted with limits on cross-examination and access to the answer sheet.
- Board found Pham guilty of unauthorized materials and recommended expulsion; supplemental hearing occurred but did not change the outcome.
- Pham sued for TRO, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and damages; district court denied relief and dismissed damages claims on qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process viability of injunctive relief | Pham contends due process was violated; denied notice/participation were unconstitutional. | Defendants argue notice and hearings satisfied due process; no constitutional injury shown. | No substantial likelihood of due process violation; injunction denied. |
| Bias of the decisionmaker | Bias due to professor’s involvement undermined impartiality. | Presumption of honesty-in-adjudicators remains; bias not shown. | No demonstrable bias overcome; no due process violation. |
| Substantive due process standard for dismissal | Board’s procedural failures amounted to arbitrary dismissal. | No conduct shockingly arbitrary enough to violate substantive due process. | Board’s violations not sufficiently egregious to offend substantive due process. |
| Qualified immunity applicability | Violation of constitutional rights; entitlement to damages not barred by immunity. | Process satisfied constitutional requirements; no clearly established right violated. | Qualified immunity applies; monetary claims against defendants dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978) (due process rights in school dismissal)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (notice and hearing requirement for student discipline)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975) (neutral and unbiased decisionmaker requirement)
- Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (pre-termination process adequacy)
- Dixon v. Ala. State Bd. of Educ., 294 F.2d 150 (1961) (right to know evidence and witnesses)
- Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952) (substantive due process shock the conscience standard)
- Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985) (constitutional protection against arbitrary dismissal)
- Lewis v. Sacramento County, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (arbitrary official conduct standard)
- Balllas v. Symm, 494 F.2d 1167 (5th Cir. 1974) (when merits can be decided to avoid district proceedings)