297 P.3d 378
Okla.2013Background
- This is a district court administrative appeal from University of Oklahoma student disciplinary proceedings, which the Supreme Court holds lacks APA appellate jurisdiction.
- George, a University student, was charged with violations; CDB found guilt on three counts and CDC upheld that decision.
- George sought district court review under the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act (APA); the University moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under APA.
- The district court denied the motion; the University sought certiorari and the matter was recast as original jurisdiction and prohibition in this Court.
- This Court concludes that § 250.4(B)(12) does not require Article II review for non-expulsion discipline, and George’s independent civil action is an adequate remedy.
- The Court directs dismissal of the APA appeal and notes it will not adjudicate asserted due process claims that were not ruled on by the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had APA appellate jurisdiction | George contends APA provides appellate review for university discipline | University argues district court lacked jurisdiction under § 250.4(B)(12) | No APA appellate jurisdiction; dismissal ordered |
| Whether an independent civil action is an adequate remedy | George should have a direct civil action for due process | Civil action is not the exclusive remedy; APA review is appropriate | Independent civil action is adequate remedy; APA review not required |
| Whether non-expulsion discipline falls under Article II due process | Due process requires Article II review when not expulsion | Article II does not apply to non-expulsion discipline; due process preserved by other laws | Article II does not apply to non-expulsion; due process preserved via other means |
| Whether a prior non-expulsion proceeding can trigger Article II due to potential expulsion later | Strike mechanics could convert non-expulsion into expulsion via enhanced punishment | Enhancement does not convert earlier proceedings into expulsion for Article II purposes | No; prior non-expulsion proceedings not subject to Article II because of possible future expulsion |
| Whether extraordinary writ relief is appropriate to review jurisdictional issues | Discretionary certiorari could review jurisdictional questions | Treat jurisdictional issues via prohibition/original jurisdiction relief | Writ of prohibition affirmed; case remanded for dismissal of APA appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward Petroleum Corp. v. Stewart, 2008 OK 11 (OK) (certiorari review limited; jurisdiction intertwined with merits)
- Flick v. Crouch, 434 P.2d 256 (OK 1967) (jurisdictional issue intertwined with merits when status affects jurisdiction)
- Horowitz, Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v., 435 U.S. 78 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1978) (property interests and due process in student education cases)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1975) (educational due process rights and property interests in public education)
- Parker v. University, 64 P.3d 1113 (OK 2008) (supreme court progeny on substantial rights and interlocutory review)
- Bowen v. State ex rel. Okla. Real Estate Appraiser Bd., 2011 OK 86 (OK) (supervisory writs and jurisdictional review principles)
- Mehdipour v. State ex rel. Dept. of Corrections, 2004 OK 19 (OK) (judicial review pathways for constitutional claims in administrative actions)