Esteban v. Central Missouri State College
Decision Date | 03 October 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 19565.,19565. |
Citation | 415 F.2d 1077 |
Parties | Alfredo ESTEBAN and Steve Craig Roberds, Appellants, v. CENTRAL MISSOURI STATE COLLEGE, Warren C. Lovinger; W. Lester Simpson; Joe Herndon; Leland J. Culp; Virginia Cottlieb; Byron Constance and J. N. Cunningham, Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Irving Achtenberg, Kansas City, Mo., for appellants.
Robert L. Wesner, Sedalia, Mo., for appellees.
Brief of Amicus Curiae (The Curators of the University of Missouri) was filed by Jackson A. Wright, T. Richard Mager and Marvin E. Wright, Columbia, Mo.
Before BLACKMUN, MEHAFFY and LAY, Circuit Judges.
Alfredo Esteban and Steve Craig Roberds, students at Central Missouri State College, a tax-supported institution at Warrensburg, Missouri, were suspended on March 31, 1967, for two semesters but with the right thereafter to apply for readmission. The two, by their next friends, instituted the present action for declaratory and injunctive relief. The named defendants are the College, its President, and its Board of Regents. The plaintiffs allege, primarily, first, fifth, and fourteenth amendment violations. Judge Hunter, with a detailed memorandum, denied them relief and dismissed their complaint. Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 290 F.Supp. 622 (W.D.Mo.1968). The plaintiffs appeal.
Jurisdiction is asserted under 28 U.S. C. § 1331 and § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983. We are satisfied as to federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
We note initially that, although the two semester suspension period has long since expired, neither plaintiff, up to the time of the oral argument on May 16, 1969, has taken the trouble to apply for readmission.1
The disciplinary action against the plaintiffs arose out of events which took place on or adjacent to the college campus on the nights of March 29 and 30, 1967. At that time Esteban was on scholastic probation and Roberds was on disciplinary probation. Esteban also had been on disciplinary probation over a knifing incident with a fellow student, but his disciplinary probation had expired a short time before.
Both sides in their appellate briefs specifically adopt findings of fact made by Judge Hunter with respect to these March 1967 events. Accordingly, we set forth certain of those findings here:
Both sides also adopt Judge Hunter's findings as to Roberds' situation prior to the March events:
Footnotes omitted
The procedural history of the case. These plaintiffs, after their suspensions, had filed earlier complaints (277 F.Supp. 649) in the Western District of Missouri against the same defendants. Those suits also had come before Judge Hunter. The court concluded that procedural due process had not been afforded the students and that "the critical defect in the hearing procedure used by the college was the fact that the person to whom the students were permitted to make their explanation or showing, Dr. Chalquist, was only one of a number of persons on the board which made the recommendation of suspension." Accordingly, the court directed the defendants to grant each of the plaintiffs a new hearing on such charges as the defendants desired to press. The court prescribed the procedure to be followed. This included a written statement of the charge to be furnished the student on at least 10 days' notice; a hearing before the college's president, as the one person possessing authority to expel or suspend; advance inspection by the student of any affidavits or exhibits which the College intended to submit at the hearing; the student's right to have counsel present with him at the hearing; the right to present his version as to the charge and to make such showing by way of affidavits, exhibits, and witnesses as he desired; the right to hear the evidence against him and to question any witness giving adverse evidence; the president's determination of the facts solely on the evidence presented at the hearing and a statement by him in writing of his findings as to guilt or innocence of the conduct charged and the disposition, if any, to be made by way of disciplinary action; and permission to each side at its own expense to make a record of the events at the hearing. However, the students' request to be reinstated subject to the outcome of the hearing was denied. Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 277 F.Supp. 649 (W.D.Mo.1967).
Thereafter, and in line with the court's directions, written charges and notice of hearing were served on Esteban and Roberds. The charge against Esteban read:
"You are hereby notified that you are charged with contributing to and participating in an unruly and unlawful mass gathering occurring on the 30th day of March, 1967, at and near Central Missouri State College in that you, the said, Alfredo Esteban, did resist efforts of one Dr. M. L. Meverden in dispersing said mass gathering, failed and refused to identify yourself to Dr. Meverden as requested and used vile and obscene...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rumler v. BOARD OF SCH. TR. FOR LEXINGTON CTY. DIST. NO. 1 SCHOOLS
...from an unintended breach, only from persistence in failing to comply after being given notice to do so. In Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 415 F.2d 1077 (8th Cir. 1969) Judge Blackman Fourthly, we see little basically or constitutionally wrong with flexibility and reasonable bre......
-
Franklin v. Leland Stanford Junior University
...and are irrelevant. School regulations need not be spelled out with the precision of a criminal code. (Esteban v. Central Missouri State College (8th Cir.1969) 415 F.2d 1077, 1088, cert. den. 398 U.S. 965, 90 S.Ct. 2169, 26 L.Ed.2d 548; Shamloo v. Miss. State Bd. of Trustees, etc. (5th Cir.......
-
Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri
...formal findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed. Because of the pending possible review of the case of Esteban v. Central Missouri State College (C.A.8) 415 F.2d 1077,2 in the Supreme Court of the United States, and of Soglin v. Kauffman (W.D.Wis.) 295 F.Supp. 978, disapproved in ......
-
Marin v. University of Puerto Rico
...of the entry of the suspensions on the students' records. See Jones v. Snead, 431 F.2d 1115 (8th Cir. 1970); Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 415 F.2d 1077 (8th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 965, 90 S.Ct. 2169, 26 L.Ed.2d 548 (1970) (decisions which rely on the holding of the......
-
The vagueness of partial-birth abortion bans: deconstruction or destruction?
...U.S. at 414. (107) 408 U.S. 104 (1972). (108) Id. at 107-08, 121. (109) Id. at 110 (quoting Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 415 F.2d 1077, 1088 (8th Cir. (110) Id. at 112. (111) 269 U.S. 385 (1926). (112) Id. at 391-92 (citations omitted). (113) 246 U.S. 343 (1918). (114) Id. at ......
-
Act 470, SB 365 – TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS STUDENT DUE PROCESS AND PROTECTION ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS FOR STUDENT CONDUCT DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AT PUBLIC TWO-YEAR AND FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
...v. Eldridge", 424 U.S. 319, 33 (1976); (4) The Eighth Circuit has further asserted in "Esteban v. Central Missouri State College", 415 F.2d 1077, 1089 (8th Cir. 1969), that "procedural due process must be afforded by way of adequate notice, definite charge, and a hearing with opportunity to......