Montrell Greene v. Greenwood Public School Dist, e, 890 F.3d 240

Greenwood Public School District (GPSD) hired Montrell Greene as superintendent under a contract later extended through June 2018.
On January 4, 2016, three board members voted at a special meeting to terminate Greene; he was present but received no explanation and was not allowed to speak.
Greene received a written notice the next day stating he was "terminated for cause." He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivation of his property interest without due process.
The district court dismissed his claims, relying in part on Greene’s failure to appeal under Mississippi Code § 37-9-113.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether Greene adequately alleged he was denied the pre-termination process required by the Fourteenth Amendment and whether failure to pursue state post-termination remedies barred his federal claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Greene alleged a due-process violation by being terminated without a pre-termination hearing	Greene: he had a property interest in his job and received no notice or opportunity to respond before termination	Defendants: no pre-termination right was denied or state law precluded such a hearing	Held: Greene sufficiently alleged a procedural due-process claim because Loudermill requires some pre-termination notice and opportunity to respond
Whether failure to pursue Mississippi post-termination appeal (§ 37-9-113) defeats the federal due-process claim	Greene: post-termination remedies do not cure absence of constitutionally required pre-termination process	Defendants: Greene’s failure to seek statutory appeal means he received adequate process/should be precluded	Held: Failure to pursue post-deprivation remedies does not negate entitlement to pre-deprivation process; dismissal on that basis was incorrect

Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (pre-termination notice and opportunity to respond required for property-interest employees)
Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (due process requires notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the case)
Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (identification of property interests protected by due process)
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (procedural requisites may vary with interests at stake)
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (state authorization of deprivation implicates due process)
Stotter v. Univ. of Tex. at San Antonio, 508 F.3d 812 (state law forbidding procedures strengthens federal due-process implication)
Galloway v. Louisiana, 817 F.2d 1154 (a plaintiff cannot claim deprivation if he knowingly bypassed constitutionally-adequate pre-deprivation procedures)
Chiles v. Morgan, 53 F.3d 1281 (post-deprivation remedies do not satisfy requirement for pre-deprivation process)