LONNIE WILLIAMS v. KIA MCCOY, 2018 Ark. 17

McCoy was an Arkansas State University nursing student (Aug 2014–May 2015); after a re-entry exam in Sept 2015 she was accused of academic misconduct based on photographs of a quiz found on another student’s phone.
The University held hearings, suspended McCoy until Aug 2016, and denied her appeal.
McCoy sued Williams and Bartunek (official-capacity university employees), alleging violations of due process under the Arkansas Constitution and violations of FOIA; she sought declaratory relief, injunction clearing her name, and reinstatement.
Appellants moved to dismiss, asserting sovereign immunity bars McCoy’s claims and that the FOIA claim fails because educational records are exempt. The circuit court denied the motion.
Appellants appealed interlocutorily under Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. Rule 2(a)(10) (permitting appeal on sovereign-immunity denials); the appellate court confined its review to sovereign-immunity issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McCoy’s due-process claim avoids sovereign immunity because it alleges unconstitutional acts	McCoy alleges insufficient notice, lack of specificity of charges, inability to confront accuser, inadequate time to review evidence, and procedural departures from the student handbook	Appellants say sovereign immunity bars the suit because McCoy did not plead facts showing an unconstitutional act that qualifies for the exception to immunity	Court: McCoy failed to plead sufficient facts showing an unconstitutional act; due-process claim is barred by sovereign immunity — reversal of denial of dismissal and remand for dismissal of that claim
Whether the FOIA claim may be reviewed on this interlocutory appeal	McCoy asserts University improperly withheld requested records; she alleges FOIA violation	Appellants argued below a sovereign-immunity defense but on appeal argued the records are statutorily exempt under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(2)	Court: Appellate jurisdiction is limited to sovereign-immunity issues on this rule-2 interlocutory appeal; because appellants’ appellate argument did not raise sovereign immunity, the FOIA issue is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction

Johnson v. Butler, 494 S.W.3d 412 (Ark. 2016) (standard for reviewing denial of motion to dismiss and pleading requirements)
Ark. State Claims Comm’n v. Duit Constr. Co., Inc., 445 S.W.3d 496 (Ark. 2014) (fact-pleading required to invoke exception to sovereign immunity for illegal/constitutional acts)
Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Fort Smith Sch. Dist., 455 S.W.3d 294 (Ark. 2015) (sovereign immunity extended to state agencies and officers sued in official capacity)
Henderson State Univ. v. Spadoni, 848 S.W.2d 951 (Ark. App. 1993) (students entitled to notice and a hearing; full judicial hearing not required)
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1975) (student suspension due process principles; minimal procedures required)
Dixon v. Ala. State Bd. of Educ., 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961) (student disciplinary due-process precedent)
City of Little Rock v. Dayong Yang, 509 S.W.3d 632 (Ark. 2017) (scope of interlocutory appeals under Rule 2(a)(10))
City of Malvern v. Jenkins, 425 S.W.3d 711 (Ark. 2013) (Rule 2 interlocutory appeals limited to sovereign-immunity issues)