Pollak, Vida & Barer

In K.J. v. Jackson, published February 11, 2025, the 9th Circuit reversed summary judgment for the individual defendants in a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 case.  The students involved in a lunchtime fight on a high school campus were suspended for fighting on campus.  The plaintiff was included.  Before he and the other students were suspended, they met with administrators and provided written statements about the incident.  At some point after the plaintiff was sent home from school, a vice principal watched surveillance videos of the fight, and learned one of the students involved suffered injuries.  The vice principal concluded that plaintiff not only participated in the fight, but willfully caused serious injury to another person that was not in self-defense.  The night before the plaintiff was scheduled to return to school, the vice principal called the plaintiff's mother and told her school officials had decided to extend the plaintiff's suspension and were recommending his expulsion.  The plaintiff was not on the call.  The next day, the vice principal sent the parents an e-mail summarizing the call, and providing updated suspension/expulsion paperwork.  It advised the parents their next step was to communicate directly to the district's appeal department.  The parents met with a counselor from the department.  The plaintiff was not required to attend, not invited to attend, and did not attend.  His parents were not allowed to present any defense to the factual allegations underlying the suspension and recommended expulsion.  The parents then sued the district, the vice principal, and other school district officials challenging the suspension and recommended expulsion.  Five days later, the suspension was lifted and the recommendation for expulsion rescinded.  Between the suspension and the return to school, no one from the district or school ever communicated with the plaintiff. The district court agreed with the plaintiff that the district violated his 14th Amendment right to procedural due process by extending his suspension and recommending expulsion without providing him with notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the evidence, and a chance to tell his side of the story.  But it granted summary judgment on the grounds that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, because the law did not clearly establish a right to due process before a suspension is extended.  And it concluded that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing to seek expungement of his record.

The 9th Circuit agreed that the defendants violated the plaintiff's due process rights.  Goss v. Lopez (1975) 419 U.S. 565, 580-581 established the student's due process rights to notice of the charge and evidence, and a right to be heard, before suspension.  The defendants contended that they gave the plaintiff that right before his initial suspension.  But because the defendants never informed the student of the new charges and new evidence that formed the basis of the extended suspension, he did not have a meaningful opportunity to present his side of the story.  That the suspension was an extension, rather than an original suspension, was of no consequence.  Further, Goss clearly established the student's right to due process.  The suspension extension was not based on the same alleged conduct as the original suspension.  The plaintiff did not have an opportunity to present his side of the story as to the new charges and evidence.  The procedures delineated in Goss clearly apply to suspension extensions based on new charges or new evidence.  Finally, the plaintiff may seek expungement of any records of the suspension extension and expulsion recommendations.  There is no 11th Amendment bar to the plaintiff seeking prospective injunctive relief from an ongoing violation of federal law.  The district court's finding that the relief sought was moot was error.  The relief sought was not moot at the time the plaintiff filed suit, because he was still suspended and unable to return to school.  He had standing to seek injunctive relief to stop the ongoing effects of the violation.  And because the suspension report and expulsion recommendation remain in his disciplinary files–accessible to district personnel– and he would likely need to self-disclose that information on college applications, his prayer is not moot.