Esteban v. Central Missouri State College

Decision Date03 October 1967
Docket Number16474.,No. 16473,16473
Citation277 F. Supp. 649
PartiesAlfredo ESTEBAN et al., Plaintiffs, v. CENTRAL MISSOURI STATE COLLEGE et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

Irving Achtenberg, Achtenberg, Sandler & Balkin, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiffs.

Robert L. Wesner, Wesner, Wesner & Meyer, Sedalia, Mo., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DIRECTING THAT PLAINTIFFS BE GRANTED A NEW HEARING

ELMO B. HUNTER, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs' demands for injunctive relief and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. A hearing was held on September 6, 1967, and the Court received the revisions to plaintiffs' supplemental reply brief September 29, 1967. At the hearing held herein the Court dismissed plaintiff Len Wesley Powell from this suit without prejudice, leaving Alfredo Esteban and Steve Roberds as the only two active plaintiffs in the case.

In the spring of 1967 at the time he was suspended from Central Missouri State College plaintiff Roberds was on disciplinary probation. At the time plaintiff Esteban was suspended in the spring of 1967 he was on scholastic probation and prior to that time had been on disciplinary probation. Each of the suspensions followed two nights of student demonstrations variously described at the hearing as "disturbances," "incidents," and "riots."

The record demonstrates that each of the plaintiffs was orally advised of the reason the College was considering disciplinary action against him and was given an opportunity to make such explanation to the Dean of Men, Dr. Chalquist, as he desired to. Each was further advised that he was entitled to appeal to the President of the College, Dr. Lovinger, in the event disciplinary action was recommended. Each of the plaintiffs discussed his version of the circumstances with Dr. Chalquist. At the hearing in this matter plaintiff Roberds advised the Court that he had been in attendance at the demonstrations on both evenings, for approximately 30 minutes the first evening and one hour the second evening contending however, that he was merely a spectator on each occasion. Plaintiff Esteban stated to the Court that he called the resident assistant vulgar names, here deleted after he had given Esteban's name to Dr. Meverden.

On the basis of the voluntary statements made by the plaintiffs to Dr. Chalquist and to the Court it appears that there is relatively little of a factual nature in dispute concerning the conduct of the plaintiffs at the time in question.

In recent years, and particularly in recent months, there has been considerable judicial activity in this field of students' rights vis-a-vis the rights of university administrators. See for example, Dickey v. Alabama State Board of Education, United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division, 273 F.Supp. 613 (September 8, 1967); Hammond v. South Carolina State College, United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Orangeburg Division, 272 F.Supp. 947 (August 31, 1967); Due v. Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University, 233 F.Supp. 396 (D.C. 1963); Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961). It is not disputed that the 14th amendment with its due process clause applies to state educational institutions. The question before this Court is rather, were the plaintiffs entitled to procedural due process before they were suspended, and if so, were they afforded procedural due process? The Court is in accord with those cases referred to above in that it holds the plaintiffs as students at a state college are entitled to procedural due process before they can be suspended from college. Whether the interest of the student be described as a right or a privilege, the fact remains it is an interest of extremely great value and is deserving of constitutional protection. However, in so holding the Court does not hold that the procedural due process which must...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Lopez v. Williams
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • February 19, 1974
    ...26 L.Ed.2d 562 (1970); Williams v. Dade County School Board, 441 F.2d 299, 301-302 (5th Cir. 1971); Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 277 F.Supp. 649, 651-652 (W.D.Mo. 1967); Jones v. State Board of Education of Tennessee, 279 F.Supp. 190, 198 (M.D.Tenn.1968), affirmed, 407 F.2d 83......
  • Lieberman v. Marshall
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1970
    ...for vagueness a North Carolina law requiring state universities to regulate speakers coming onto campus; Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 277 F.Supp. 649 (1967) in which it was held that suspended students were denied a fair due process hearing; Hammond v. South Carolina State Col......
  • Soglin v. Kauffman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin
    • December 13, 1968
    ...Troy State Univ., 284 F.Supp. 725 (M.D.Ala.1968); Schiff v. Hanna, 282 F.Supp. 381 (W.D.Mich.1966) (en banc); Esteban v. Central Mo. State College, 277 F.Supp. 649 (W.D.Mo. 1967); Knight v. State Bd. of Educ., 200 F.Supp. 174 (M.D.Tenn.1961). But judicial intervention in school disciplinary......
  • Gorman v. University of Rhode Island
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • October 14, 1986
    ...at a university disciplinary hearing, even though no criminal charges on the acts at issue were pending, Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 277 F.Supp. 649 (W.D.Mo.1967). The weight of authority does not support Esteban's holding on this issue, however. See Madera v. Board of Educat......
  • 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