Wong v. Hayakawa, 24456.

• Decision Date: 09 August 1972
• Docket Number: No. 24456.,24456.
• Citation: 464 F.2d 1282
• Parties: Mason WONG, Patricia Woolman through Morris Woolman her Guardian Ad Litem, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. S.I. HAYAKAWA, Acting President of San Francisco State College, individually and in his official capacity, and Edwin C. Duerr, Coordinator of Internal Affairs, San Francisco State College, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

464 F.2d 1282 (1972)

Mason WONG, Patricia Woolman through Morris Woolman her Guardian Ad Litem, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. S.I. HAYAKAWA, Acting President of San Francisco State College, individually and in his official capacity, and Edwin C. Duerr, Coordinator of Internal Affairs, San Francisco State College, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 24456.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

August 9, 1972.

Gerald F. Carreros, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Elizabeth Palmer, Deputy Atty. Gen., Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellants.

Michael S. Sorgen (argued), Ronald J. Mullin, Marvin S. Kayne, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before KOELSCH and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON,^* District Judge.

KOELSCH, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal by the President and certain other officials of San Francisco State College, a state institution, from an order of the United States District Court, granting Mason Wong and Patricia Woolman (hereafter plaintiffs) a preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs were students at San Francisco State College during the period in late 1968 and early 1969, when the campus was the scene of a series of violent rallies and lawless protests. During one such occasion, on January 13, 1969, plaintiffs were caught up in the police dragnet which swept the central campus and, together with numerous other persons, were arrested and formally charged with several criminal offenses: participating in an unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace and refusing to disperse. Shortly afterward, and while the criminal charges remained pending, the college commenced separate disciplinary proceedings against Wong, Woolman and many of the other alleged student participants. Following hearings, the Disciplinary Committee, concluding that plaintiffs had participated in the disturbance, recommenced that the college punish them. Thereupon, plaintiffs filed this suit, purportedly as a class action to enjoin defendants from acting upon any recommendation of the Committee "until plaintiffs and members of their class are given a fair due process hearing. . . ." Pending trial on the merits, plaintiffs asked for a preliminary injunction.

In substance, plaintiffs' claim, as set out in their complaint, is that the Disciplinary Committee misinterpreted and erroneously applied the state statute which permits punishment of students for academically-related misconduct; that the regulations of the college do not provide, and plaintiffs were not given, fair notice of a disciplinary proceeding; that the procedures were fundamentally unfair and that no proof was adduced which tended to support the Committee's decision and recommendation.

The application for the preliminary injunction was heard, as such matters generally are, on a record consisting of plaintiffs' verified complaint, together with supporting affidavits and defendants' counter-affidavits. Following that hearing the court ruled that the claim was not the subject of a class action and could not be prosecuted as such; in addition, the court rejected all of plaintiffs' due process contentions save one. Thus, the court, applying the well recognized test stated in the case of Scoggin v. Lincoln University, 291 F. Supp. 161 at 171 (D.C.W.D.Mo. 1968),...