FILTERS



Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments


  • Date:

    Caldwell v. Univ. of N.M. Bd. of Regents, et al. (D. N.M. June 23, 2023)

    Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  Plaintiff is a former student and varsity basketball player at the University of New Mexico (UNM) who was placed on interim suspension and banned from campus and from basketball team activities after he was accused of battery.  Plaintiff alleged that the Dean of Students violated his due process rights when she banned him temporarily from campus and University housing.  In granting the Dean’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court held although plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a property right in continued enrollment, the University’s procedures provided due process.  It also held that even if he had a property right in his University-provided housing and meals, the two eviction notices and four hearings provided him with adequate notice and process.  It held, however, that he had not sufficiently alleged a property right in his ability to play basketball.  Finally, the court also held that the Dean was also entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged property rights were not clearly established.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Student Athlete Issues | Student Conduct | Students

  • Date:

    Doe v. Univ. of N. Tex. Health Sci. Ctr. (N.D. Tex. June 23, 2023)

    Order and Opinion granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.  Plaintiff, a former medical student at the University of North Texas Health Science Center who was permitted to take a one-year medical leave of absence, brought due process and equal protection claims against multiple officials in their individual capacities after he was dismissed from the program for failure to meet the conditions for his return, even after multiple requests from the officials.  The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on his due process claim, finding that though he claimed not to have received a hand-delivered letter outlining the conditions for his return, two email notices informing him that he faced dismissal and one informing him of his dismissal and opportunity for appeal provided sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard.  The court similarly held that plaintiff’s equal protection claim failed because he did not identify a similarly situated non-disabled person who was treated differently after taking medical leave, failing to satisfy the conditions for return, and failing to respond to multiple notices in the dismissal process.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process