Glendle Cain, III v. Owensboro Public Schools, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6159

G.C. attended Owensboro High School as an out-of-district student from 2005 onward under a reciprocal enrollment policy.
Board Policy 09.125 allowed nonresident enrollment with superintendent approval and principal and superintendent input for continued enrollment.
G.C. had multiple disciplinary incidents from 2007–2009, including behavioral issues, suicidal ideation, and searches that preceded actions by school officials.
In August 2009, G.C.’s parents completed an in-district registration form listing his address at grandparents’ home while parents remained in another district, creating a potential residence discrepancy.
On September 2, 2009, G.C. texted in class, his phone was confiscated, and a teacher read four text messages; this led Burnette to recommend revoking his out-of-district attendance privilege.
On October 15, 2009, officials met with G.C.’s parents; Vick revoked the out-of-district status, though G.C. could still attend in the home district under conditions; G.C. filed suit in October 2009, later amending to include a Rehabilitation Act claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether G.C. was entitled to a pre-expulsion due-process hearing.	G.C. had a property interest in education and was expulsed without a proper hearing.	Policy 09.125 gave discretionary enrollment authority, not a guaranteed process of removal once enrolled.	G.C. was entitled to due process prior to expulsion; district court’s grant of summary judgment on due-process was reversed.
Whether the September 2009 cell-phone search was justified under the Fourth Amendment.	The search was not justified at inception; no reasonable suspicion specific to the search.	Officers had reasonable suspicion given drug history and suicidal thoughts; search limited to what was needed.	The district court’s grant of summary judgment on the September 2009 search was reversed; remand for damages discussion.
Whether G.C.’s Rehabilitation Act § 504 claim was properly dismissed at summary judgment.	Defendants failed to identify and address G.C.’s disabilities and provide appropriate services.	Plaintiff failed to show discriminatory denial of a free appropriate public education; no bad faith shown.	Affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment on § 504 claim; insufficient evidence of discrimination.

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1975) (due process in school suspensions; certain hearings required)
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1985) (reasonableness standard for student searches in schools)
Brannum v. Overton Cnty. Sch. Bd., 516 F.3d 489 (6th Cir. 2008) (reasonableness of school searches; scope controls inception)
Klump v. Nazareth Area School District, 425 F.Supp.2d 622 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (district court cell-phone search sequence; inception scope considerations)
Newsome v. Batavia Local Sch. Dist., 842 F.2d 920 (6th Cir. 1988) (pre-expulsion hearing; due process generally required)
Daniels v. Woodside, 396 F.3d 730 (6th Cir. 2005) (denial of readmission not per se due process violation; context matters)
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1978) (nominal damages available for procedural due process violations)
Slicker v. Jackson, 215 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2000) (nominal damages available for Fourth Amendment claims)
Remer v. Burlington Area Sch. Dist., 286 F.3d 1007 (7th Cir. 2002) (constructive expulsion considerations)
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1978) (nominal damages available for procedural due process violations)