Lucey v. State ex rel. Board of Regents of Nevada System of Higher Education, 052110 FED9, 09-15996

Docket Nº:09-15996
Party Name:KEVIN LUCEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA EX. REL. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, on behalf of the UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS; REBECCA MILLS; RICHARD CLARK; PHILLIP BURNS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: RYMER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and FAWSETT, Senior District Judge.
Case Date:May 21, 2010
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

KEVIN LUCEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF NEVADA EX. REL. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, on behalf of the UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS; REBECCA MILLS; RICHARD CLARK; PHILLIP BURNS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-15996

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

May 21, 2010

         NOT FOR PUBLICATION

          Submitted May 13, 2010[**] San Francisco, California

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:07-cv-658-RLH-RJJ

          Before: RYMER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and FAWSETT, Senior District Judge.[***]

          MEMORANDUM[*]

         This case concerns disciplinary sanctions imposed against plaintiff Kevin Lucey for incidents occurring while he was enrolled as a student at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas ("UNLV") during the fall 2006 semester.

         We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim of Lucey's due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of the sanctions imposed at the hearing on December 4, 2006 ("December 4 Hearing"). Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We review the district court's denial of leave to Lucey to amend his complaint for abuse of discretion. Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009).

         On the facts alleged, Lucey's right to procedural due process at the December 4 Hearing was satisfied because Lucey was subject to sanctions less than suspension or expulsion and received "some kind of notice and [was] afforded some kind of hearing." Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 579 (1975). Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Lucey's § 1983 procedural due process claim concerning the December 4 Hearing. Although Lucey faults the district court for denying leave to amend without reasons, the court explained that Lucey's proposed amendment added nothing new when it denied Lucey's Motion for Leave to Amend. We see no abuse of discretion. Further, the undisputed evidence developed in the record on motion for summary judgment shows that Lucey's procedural and substantive due process rights were not violated by the procedures for, the conduct of, or the results of either the December 4 Hearing or the hearing on July 9, 2007 ("July 9 Hearing"). Cf. Hurn v. Ret. Fund Trust of Plumbing, Heating & Piping Indus. of S. Cal., 648 F.2d 1252...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP