Brown v. University of Kansas

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 13, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
ROBERT M. BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 14-3102
(D.C. No. 2:10-CV-02606-EFM)
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS; (D. Kan.)
STEPHEN W. MAZZA, individually
and in his official capacity as
Interim Dean of the University of
Kansas School of Law; JOYCE A.
MCCRAY-PEARSON; GAIL B.
AGRAWAL; WENDY ROHLEDER-
SOOK; ANDY TOMPKINS, in his
official capacity as President of the
Kansas Board of Regents; GARY
SHERRER, in his official capacity
as Chair of the Kansas Board of
Regents; ED MCKECHNIE, in his
official capacity as Vice Chair of
the Kansas Board of Regents;
JAROLD BOETTCHER, in his
official capacity as a member of the
Kansas Board of Regents;
CHRISTINE DOWNEY-SCHMIDT,
in her official capacity as a member
of the Kansas Board of Regents;
MILDRED EDWARDSIN, in her
official capacity as a member of the
Kansas Board of Regents; TIM
EMERT, Chairman, in his official
capacity as a member of the Kansas
Board of Regents; RICHARD
HEDGES, in his official capacity as
a member of the Kansas Board of
Regents; DAN LYKINS, in his
official capacity as a member of the
Kansas Board of Regents; JANIE
PERKINS, in her official capacity as
a member of the Kansas Board of
Regents; BERNADETTE
GRAY-LITTLE, in her official
capacity as Chancellor of the
University of Kansas,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HOLMES, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
Mr. Robert M. Brown was enrolled as a student at the University of
Kansas School of Law until school officials learned of his criminal history.
When they discovered this history, they expelled Mr. Brown from the
school. He reacted by suing the school, some faculty members, and all of
the state regents, alleging state torts and denial of due process. The
district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and we affirm.
*
The Court has determined that oral argument would not materially
help in deciding the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R.
34.1(G). Thus, we have declined to order oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may
be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P.
32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
-2-
I. Mr. Brown’s Criminal History and Expulsion
When Mr. Brown applied for law school, his application contained a
section entitled “Character & Fitness.” In this section, applicants were to
disclose any criminal history:
Have you ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of
a felony, misdemeanor or infraction other than a traffic
violation? (include diversions, sealed or expunged records, and
juvenile offenses)
Have you ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of
a traffic violation involving alcohol or a controlled substance?
(include diversions, sealed or expunged records, and juvenile
offenses)
If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, please explain
on a separate sheet or electronic attachment submitted with
your application and provide the date, nature of the offense or
proceeding, name and location of the court or tribunal, and
disposition of the matter.
Appellees’ App., vol. I at 224. Mr. Brown answered “no” to these
questions.
He then certified the truth of his answers, acknowledging that a false
answer constituted “sufficient cause for denial of [the] application or
dismissal from the School of Law.” Id. at 224-25, 227.
With certification of the answers, the law school accepted
Mr. Brown and he began classes.
Mr. Brown then amended his application to disclose criminal
convictions for domestic battery and driving under the influence. The law
-3-
school’s admissions committee investigated and determined that
Mr. Brown’s application would have been rejected if his criminal history
had been known. With this determination, an associate dean filed an
academic misconduct complaint. Mr. Brown objected, and a hearing panel
dismissed the complaint on the ground that it did not allege violation of a
particular rule. Nonetheless, the panel observed that Mr. Brown’s
application and certification letter acknowledged that he could be expelled
for falsifying, misrepresenting, or failing to supply required information.
The law school’s dean, Ms. Gail Agrawal, sent Mr. Brown a letter,
stating her intent to dismiss him for “falsification, misrepresentation, and
failure to supply complete, accurate and truthful answers to [his]
application for admission to the School of Law.” Id. at 211. She detailed
the facts warranting dismissal and stated: “If you believe that this action
is inappropriate or that there are mitigating factors that I should consider
before dismissing you, then you must provide me with a written response
to this letter by 2:00 p.m. on June 3, 2010.” Id. Mr. Brown challenged the
dismissal, demanding a hearing and notice of the charges and requesting a
hearing with the University Judicial Board and a personal meeting with
Dean Agrawal. Dean Agrawal declined a meeting and the Judicial Board’s
chairperson declined to provide a hearing, stating that faculty rules
authorized each college to establish its own admission standards. The
-4-
Dean then notified Mr. Brown that he was dismissed from the law school
“based on falsification, misrepresentation and failure to supply the
required information to support [his] admission to the School of Law.” Id.
at 144-45.
Mr. Brown sued, and the district court granted summary judgment to
the defendants, ruling that the members of the Board of Regents had no
personal involvement in Mr. Brown’s dismissal, and that the defendants
provided due process. 1
II. Standard of Review
We engage in de novo review of the award of summary judgment,
applying the standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Cillo v. City of
Greenwood Vill., 739 F.3d 451, 461 (10th Cir. 2013). In applying this
standard, we view the facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Brown,
resolving all factual disputes and reasonable inferences in his favor. Id.
Because Mr. Brown is proceeding pro se, we afford his materials a liberal
construction, but do not act as his advocate. See Yang v. Archuleta,
525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).
1
The district court also held that the state-law claims failed as a
matter of law.
-5-
III. Application of the Standard of Review
Applying this standard, we conclude that the award of summary
judgment was proper.
A. Members of the Board of Regents
Members of the Board of Regents were entitled to summary
judgment.
As the district court recognized, “government officials may not be
held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a
theory of respondeat superior.” Pahls v. Thomas, 718 F.3d 1210, 1225
(10th Cir. 2013) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).
Mr. Brown testified that his claim against the regents was based purely on
their oversight function. Appellees’ App., vol. I at 172. Based on this
testimony, Mr. Brown conceded that he had no evidence that the regents
knew about his application or expulsion. Id. at 175-76. Under these
circumstances, the members of the Board of Regents were entitled to
summary judgment.
B. The Due Process Arguments
We also reject Mr. Brown’s due process arguments.
“The Fourteenth Amendment provides that a state shall not ‘deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’”
Lauck v. Campbell Cnty., 627 F.3d 805, 811 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting U.S.
-6-
Const. amend. XIV, § 1). Under this amendment, we address two
questions. The first is whether a liberty or property interest exists. The
second is whether the State provided sufficient procedures. Id. In this
case, we will assume Mr. Brown had liberty or property interests
implicated by his dismissal from the law school. See Bd. of Curators of
Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1978) (assuming without
deciding the existence of a liberty or property interest); Trotter v. Regents
of Univ. of N.M., 219 F.3d 1179, 1184 (10th Cir. 2000) (same).
The question then becomes the adequacy of the procedures. The
district court properly required greater procedural safeguards because the
university was considering an action that was disciplinary rather than
academic. See Harris v. Blake, 798 F.2d 419, 423 (10th Cir. 1986). The
procedures satisfied the stringent requirements for disciplinary action.
When a university considers expulsion, it must use procedures
accounting for the conflicting interests. Watson ex rel. Watson v. Beckel,
242 F.3d 1237, 1240 (10th Cir. 2001). To consider those interests, we
weigh “(1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action,
(2) the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural
safeguards, and (3) the government’s interest, including the fiscal and
administrative burden, that the additional or substitute procedural
requirements would entail.” Id. The objective is to ensure balancing of
-7-
“[t]he students’ interest in unfair or mistaken exclusion from the
educational process” and “the school’s interest in discipline and order.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
The risk of unfair expulsion is minimal because Mr. Brown knew
what he had done, knew it constituted ground for expulsion, and took
various opportunities to urge mitigation.
Mr. Brown argues that the procedures should have had greater
formality, citing Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). But Goss simply
noted that severe disciplinary action could require “more formal
procedures,” not necessarily the equivalent of a trial. Goss, 419 U.S. at
584. For our purposes, the issue is whether greater protections would have
proved beneficial. Any benefits would have been minimal in light of the
undisputed facts.
These facts include Mr. Brown’s acknowledgement that he could be
expelled for falsifying his application and his notification to the school
that he had given false information. The dean relied on this fact, but gave
Mr. Brown an opportunity to respond.
Mr. Brown did so, raising procedural objections and requesting a
hearing, but failed to address the fact that he had knowingly provided false
information. Accordingly, Dean Agrawal ordered expulsion.
-8-
In light of these undisputed facts, further procedural safeguards
would have added little. See Watson, 242 F.3d at 1241 (“All that is
necessary to satisfy due process is that the procedures be tailored, in light
of the decision to be made, to the capacities and circumstances of those
who are to be heard, to insure that they are given a meaningful opportunity
to present their case.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Elsewhere, Mr. Brown contends that Dean Agrawal was biased. But,
there is no evidence of a link between the dean’s alleged bias and the
decision to expel Mr. Brown. The connection is particularly attenuated
because a separate body (the admissions committee) concluded that the
school would not have allowed admission into the school if the criminal
history had been disclosed.
Mr. Brown also relies on the university’s failure to follow its own
rules and regulations. The district court rejected this argument, holding
that the university’s “failure to follow its own regulations does not, by
itself, give rise to a constitutional violation.” Appellees’ App., vol. IV at
579 (citing Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 92 n.8; Trotter, 219 F.3d at 1185;
Schuler v. Univ. of Minn., 788 F.2d 510, 515 (8th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)).
Mr. Brown argues that the district court erroneously relied on cases
involving academic dismissals rather than disciplinary actions. But, even
in the disciplinary context, a school’s failure to comply with its own rules
-9-
“does not, in itself, constitute a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Hill v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 537 F.2d 248, 252 (7th Cir. 1976). Indeed, “[t]he
Due Process Clause . . . does not require the University to follow any
specific set of detailed procedures as long as the procedures the University
actually follows are basically fair ones . . . .” Newman v. Burgin, 930 F.2d
955, 960 (1st Cir. 1991). The procedures afforded to Mr. Brown were fair
as a matter of law.
C. Mr. Brown’s Proffered Factual Disputes
Mr. Brown asserts the district court erred in resolving alleged factual
disputes. He first says it was “clear error” for the district court to limit its
decision to undisputed facts. Appellant’s Br. at 54. This argument is
meritless because summary judgment is appropriate only if “‘there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact.’” Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corp.
v. Medtronic, Inc., 762 F.3d 1114, 1118 (10th Cir. 2014) (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a)) (emphasis added). Of course, the defendants “must identify
portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact,” and Mr. Brown was entitled to have the evidence viewed in
the light most favorable to him. Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d
664, 679 (10th Cir. 1998).
Mr. Brown cites 321 factual statements, saying they show material
disputes disregarded by the district court. For example, he says that a
- 10 -
factual dispute existed regarding his reasons for not disclosing the criminal
cases. But, Mr. Brown’s motivation is irrelevant. The key consideration is
whether Mr. Brown disputes that he knowingly gave false answers in his
application. He does not dispute that fact.
In a related argument, Mr. Brown contends that despite evidence
showing material disputes, the district court erred in making the following
dispositive factual findings:
● that he lied on his law school application;
● that the defendants’ conduct was not “wanton” for purposes of
his state-law negligence claim;
● that he had no reasonable expectation of practicing law and
could not show intentional misconduct or malice to support his
state-law tortious interference claim; and
● that there was no evidence of unlawful overt acts or meeting of
the minds to support his state-law civil conspiracy claim.
The first finding involves an uncontested fact, for Mr. Brown does
not deny that he intentionally gave false information about his criminal
history.
We need not address the other three findings, because Mr. Brown
does not challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his
state-law claims. Indeed, the state-law claims are not listed in
Mr. Brown’s statement of the issues in his opening brief. See Aplt. Br. at
3-4. And apart from an isolated reference in his statement of the case, his
- 11 -
opening brief refers to the state-law claims only in the context of this
factual discussion. These scattered references are insufficient to preserve
appellate review. See Murrell v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1388, 1389 n.2
(10th Cir. 1994).
IV. Sealed Record Volume
We also have an issue involving the sealing of Volume V of the
defendants’ appendix. The clerk’s office directed the parties to file written
responses stating whether Volume V should remain under seal and, if so,
for how long. We have held:
A party seeking to file court records under seal must overcome
a presumption, long supported by courts, that the public has a
common-law right of access to judicial records. To do so, the
parties must articulate a real and substantial interest that
justifies depriving the public of access to the records that
inform our decision-making process.
Eugene S. v. Horizon Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey, 663 F.3d
1124, 1135-36 (10th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
The defendants have requested that Volume V remain under seal
because it contains redacted information obtained through discovery of
other students who amended their law school applications to disclose
criminal or disciplinary records. The defendants claim these students have
a strong interest in preventing the disclosure of their personally
identifiable information. See generally Family Educational Rights and
- 12 -
Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1). We agree and conclude that the
defendants have shown a substantial interest justifying the continued
sealing of Volume V. Accordingly, Volume V shall remain under seal.
V. Disposition
We affirm and direct the Clerk to continue sealing Volume V of the
defendants’ appendix.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
- 13 -