Bloodman v. Kimbrell, 091913 FED8, 12-3205

Docket Nº:12-3205
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:Teresa Bloodman, Parent and Natural Guardian of John Doe, a Minor Child Plaintiff-Appellant v. Dr. Tom Kimbrell, Arkansas Department of Education, Individually Named and Official Capacity; Dr. Jerry Guess, Superintendent, Pulaski County Special School District, Individually Named and Official Capacity; Dr. Tameka Brown, Principal, Maumelle High Sch
Judge Panel:Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:September 19, 2013
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Teresa Bloodman, Parent and Natural Guardian of John Doe, a Minor Child Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

Dr. Tom Kimbrell, Arkansas Department of Education, Individually Named and Official Capacity; Dr. Jerry Guess, Superintendent, Pulaski County Special School District, Individually Named and Official Capacity; Dr. Tameka Brown, Principal, Maumelle High School, Individually Named and Official Capacity; Michael Shook, Coach, Maumelle High School, Individually Named and Official Capacity; Grover Garrison, Coach, Maumelle High School, Individually Named and Official Capacity; Sherman Cox, Athletic Director, Maumelle High School, Individually Named and Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees

No. 12-3205

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

September 19, 2013

Unpublished

Submitted: August 7, 2013

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Teresa Bloodman is the parent and guardian of John Doe, a minor child and student at Maumelle High School. Bloodman brought this complaint claiming that the defendants violated her son's rights when the school, in violation of its own policies (1) placed him on the school basketball team after he tried out but removed him from the team after additional tryouts were held and (2) reassigned him from a seventh-hour athletics class to a study hall and then to a home economics class. She sought relief under the United States and Arkansas Constitutions and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The District Court dismissed the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. This appeal followed. After careful de novo review, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. See Butler v. Bank of Am., 690 F.3d 959, 961 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review).

We agree with the District Court that Bloodman failed to state a due-process claim based on her son's removal from the basketball team. See Austell v. Sprenger, 690 F.3d 929, 935 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining that a constitutionally cognizable property right arises when state law creates a justifiable expectation of entitlement); Marler v. Mo. State Bd. of Optometry, 102 F.3d 1453, 1456 (8th Cir. 1996) ("To establish a procedural due process violation, a plaintiff must first...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP