Disesa v. St. Louis Community College, 95-2409

Citation79 F.3d 92
Decision Date14 March 1996
Docket NumberNo. 95-2409,95-2409
PartiesDianna DISESA, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS COMMUNITY COLLEGE; Betty Duvall, Individually and in capacity as Dean of Instruction; Francis R. Dennis, Individually and in capacity as Chairperson of Nursing Department; Thelma Vasques, Individually and in capacity as Nursing Instructor, Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri; David D. Noce, Magistrate Judge.

Stephen J. Nangle, St. Louis, MO, argued, for appellant.

Kenneth M. Lander, St. Louis, MO, argued, for appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, ROSS, and DIANA E. MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Dianna Disesa appeals from the magistrate judge's 1 grant of summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against St. Louis Community College at Florissant (the "College") and five college officials, alleging violations of her substantive and procedural due process rights regarding a failed nursing school course. We affirm.

I.

Disesa alleges that during her final semester as a nursing student at the College she was informed that she had failed the classroom portion of a multi-part class entitled "Nursing of Adults and Children III," taught by defendants Thelma Vasquez, Dorothy Bowen and Joan Burns. Following the receipt of this failing grade and the final decision not to allow Disesa to retake the failed exam, Disesa was required to repeat the entire semester course, thus postponing her graduation by one semester.

The course grade was calculated on the basis of five quizzes, which accounted for seventy-five percent of the grade, and a final examination, which accounted for the remaining twenty-five percent. Following the first few quizzes, several students complained of administrative deficiencies in the testing procedures including typographical errors in the materials and test questions, testing on materials not covered in class, and an inability to review the quizzes after they were graded. The nursing department responded to these complaints by issuing a formal announcement regarding more rigorous faculty proofreading requirements and by allowing the students to retake the third quiz.

Following the final exam, Disesa received a call from Francis Dennis, the chair of the nursing department, who informed Disesa that she had failed the classroom portion of the course and thus would not be allowed to graduate on schedule. In a class of forty-six students, Disesa was one of seven who failed. The failing students met with Dean Dennis to discuss the possibility of retaking the test. After a series of faculty meetings to discuss the situation, the request was denied. The decision was appealed to the Dean of Instruction, Betty Duvall, who also denied the students' request to retake the test.

The students referred their complaint to the Missouri Board of Nursing, and an investigation followed. On December 20, 1989, the Board issued a list of recommendations to be implemented by the college nursing program and requested a response. After receiving no response, the Board issued a citation to the College for deficiencies in meeting the minimum standards of accreditation. Subsequently, Dean Dennis responded with a compliance proposal that satisfied the Board and resolved the inquiry.

In response to the students' complaints, the College offered the failed course the following fall so that the students would not have to wait for its usual spring offering. Disesa retook the class in the fall semester and passed. She then passed the state licensing exam.

On May 23, 1991, Disesa filed a section 1983 action against the College, Vasquez, Bowen, Burns, Dennis, and Duvall. Disesa's complaint alleged numerous substantive and procedural due process violations related to the teaching of the failed course, Disesa's failing grade, and the administration's resolution of her complaints. In response to defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the district court 2 dismissed without prejudice all but four of Disesa's claims, an action from which Disesa does not appeal. The claims remaining were: 1) a procedural due process claim that defendants Dennis and Duvall failed to follow grievance procedures established by the College Handbook for resolving disputes regarding grading decisions; 2) a substantive due process claim against Vasquez, Burns, and Bowen concerning the alleged arbitrary and capricious administration of classroom prerequisites regarding individual students' attendance and work load; 3) a substantive due process claim that curricula requirements were waived on an arbitrary and capricious basis for students similarly situated to Disesa; and 4) a substantive due process claim that defendants Dennis and Duvall's response to Disesa's complaints was motivated by ill will or bad faith.

For resolution of these remaining issues, the parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, who granted summary judgment on each claim.

II.

We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, applying the same standard as the district court. Billingsley v. St. Louis County, 70 F.3d 61, 62 (8th Cir.1995). We will affirm the district court's decision if we find no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.

We first address Disesa's procedural due process claim alleging that in reviewing Disesa's complaints Dennis and Duvall failed to comply with procedures dictated by the College Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook that was in effect during the Spring 1989 semester. The core of this claim is that an adequate forum was never provided for review of alleged course deficiencies that may have influenced the failing grade. Disesa points to the Handbook section entitled "violation of student rights," which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Taylor v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • October 3, 2022
    ...a protected due process interest 22 existed with respect to two high school students' failing grades); Diseasa v. St. Louis Cmty. Coll., 79 F.3d 92, 95 (8th Cir. 1996) (assuming that student handbook setting forth a grievance procedure to contest an allegedly capricious or improper grade ca......
  • Ashokkumar v. Elbaum
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • March 15, 2013
    ...or other statements of academic policy. Ikpeazu v. Univ. of Neb., 775 F.2d 250, 253 (8th Cir.1985); see also Disesa v. St. Louis Cmty. Coll., 79 F.3d 92, 95 (8th Cir.1996). In this case, the plaintiff has alleged the existence of a University misconduct policy that could be held to create a......
  • A.S. v. Lincoln Cnty. R-III Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • December 17, 2019
    ...was no rational basis for the [school's] decision or that the decision was motivated by bad faith or ill will." Disesa v. St. Louis Cmty. Coll., 79 F.3d 92, 95 (8th Cir.1996).Because the circumstances here do not present a "truly egregious [or] extraordinary case[,]" A.S.'s substantive due ......
  • Lambert v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • January 28, 2019
    ...high school students failing grades in band class for playing two unauthorized guitar pieces at a band program); Diseasa v. St. Louis Cmty. Coll., 79 F.3d 92, 95 (8th Cir. 1996) (assuming that student handbook setting forth a grievance procedure to contest an allegedly capricious or imprope......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT