## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

____________ N o. 08

- 1850 R O GE R C OR ONADO, J R ., P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. V AL LE Y VI EW P UB LI C S CHO OL D IS TRICT 3 6 5

- U, E TAL ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

____________ Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08 C1254

—Jo hn W. Darrah, Judge
.

____________ A RG UE D J UL Y 8, 2008

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 12, 2008

____________
B efore B AUER, C OFFEYa nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . Ro ge r C or on ad o, Jr., a fift ee n -ye a r -old stud en t atBo l i ngbr o o kHi g h S ch o o l, was i nv o l ve d i n a confro ntati on be tw een r i valga ngs in the schoo l cafete
ria

— f o r whi chhe r ec ei ve d a two- se m es te r e xpul si o n. Act i ngthr o ugh hi s n e xtfr i e nd , S he l l e y Gi lb e r t, Co r o na do sued the schoo l dist ri ct, a pol i ce offi cer, and var i ous s chool offi ci al s under 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983, cl ai m i ng, as r el evanther e, th athi s ex pul si o n h ea r i ngdepr i ve d hi m ofpro ce dur aldue2 N o. 08

- 1850 proce ss. Cor onado a l so soughta prel i m i naryi nj uncti on th at w oul d l i ft the expuls i on unti l a seco nd hear i ng with “Due Proc ess s afeguards” coul d take pl ace. The di str i ct cour t deni ed the m oti on, however, r eas oni ng tha t C or on ad o h ad failed to d em on st ra te a re as on ab le li ke lihood o fsucce ss on the m er i ts, and that the pr opose d i nj unc ti o n wo ul d ha r m the pub l i c i nt er es t. Thi s i nt er l o cuto ry ap p ea l follow ed
. See 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 9 2 ( a ) ( 1 )
. We a ffi r m.
I. The f ol l ow i ng f acts ar e undis pu ted. Duri ng the l unch hour on F ebr uary 4 , 2 008, se ver albo ys

— som e o fthem L atin K i ngs

— s a tdo wn a tCo r o na do ’ s t a b l e i n the s c hool ca fe t e r i a . Wi th i n a fe w mi n u t e s , a me mb e r o fa s e co nd g an g, the Ga ng st erDi sc i pl es , a ppr o ac he d the t ab l e an d bega n t o t au nt the grou p . Th e othe r boys at C orona d o’s tabl e ros e to confro nt the i r ri val, wh i ch at tr acte d add i ti onal Gang st erDi sc i pl es . Bo th si des s ta r te d s ho ut i nga nd m aking gan g s igns. C orona d o s tood u p as w ell
. Bu t before th e si tu at i o n cou ld es ca l at e fur th er, the b el l r an ga nd the gr ou p d isp er se d at th e ur gin g of a s ec u rit y g u ar d . Sh or tly th er ea fte r Ti m o th y Ga vin, a s ec o nd s ec uri ty g ua r d i n the cafete ri a, fi l ed an i nci dent r epor t in w hi ch h e w ro te, “Rog er was s ee n b y m yse l fpo stur i ngwi tha l ar g e g r o up i n the cafete ri a who w er e fl ashi ng g ang s i gns a t a gr ou p of GangsterD i sci ple s. ” G avi n al so w ro te up the other 12 to 14 stude nt s i nv o l ve d i n the c o nfr o nt at i o n. A f ew da y s l at erCo r o na do was t o l d t o rep o r t to the schoo l ’ s pol i ce s ubstati on, wh er e he m et Offi cerA l an H ampto n. Offi cer H am p ton show ed Coron ad o the inc i den tN o. 08

- 1850 3

re port, wh i ch Coro nado s igned bel ow thi s a cknowle dgm en t: “T he abo ve o ffen se s ha ve b ee n e xpl aine d t o me a nd Ihave had the opportunity t o re spond to them ; m y s i gnatu r e sh al l notbe t ak enas an admis si o n ofgui l ty[ si c] o fthe o ffen se ( s) a l l eg ed. ” At Offi ce r Ham pto n’ s i nv i ta ti o n, Cor o na do t el eph o ne d hi s fa th ert o l ethi m kno w tha t he w as in troubl e. Offi cerH am pton al so dem anded that Coro nado com ple te a “ M em or andu m o fI nci dent” descr ibi ng the eve nts i n the cafete ri a. Coro nado’s si gned st ate
m en t read s, “I j us t got up an d try to see ifm y fr iend s w ere goin [ si c] to need help or so m ething be cause ther e were a l ot ofthem otherguys on the ther e [s i c] side so Igo t up to hel p. ” That docum ent al so bear s the u nd ate d si gnatur es of Coron ado’ s par ents und er neath the r epres entat i on that they had “se en this state m ent. ” On the basi s o fthi s co nfe ssi o n, Co r o na do was s usp en d ed f o r t enda y s whi l e th e sc ho o l c o ns i der ed ex pul si o n. A pp ro xi m ate l y a w eeklat er, C or onado’ s fa therr ecei ved a l et te r fr o m Hea r i ngOffi ce r S te ve n Prode hle xpl aini ng that the schoo l adm i ni str ati on had c harg ed Coro nado w i th “S ubv er siv e O r g a n i z a t i o n s , ” h a d r ec o m m en ded ex pul si o n, an d ha d appo i nt ed Pr o deh l to re vi ew the matt er . Pr o deh l

“ r e qu e s t e d” tha tC or o na do a nd h i s p a r e nt s a t t e nd a hear i ng o n Feb ruar y 19, 2008 , at11 : 00 a. m . , to di scuss Cor o na do ’ s “ b e ha v i o r a nd s a i d e xp ul s i o n. ” T he l e tte r d es c rib ed th e n at u re of th e h ea rin g a s w ell: You, and yo ur chi l d, w i l l be gi ve n t h e o pp or tuni ty to re vi ew the charg es m ade ag ai nst y our chi l d. You m ay pr e s e nte v i de nc e a tthe He a r i ng, a nd h a v e c ounsel pr es en t, i fy o u de si r e. Inf o r m at i o n g erm an e to the4 N o. 08

- 1850 que st i o n o fe xpul si o n, whi ch y o u may wi sht o pr es en t i s r eque st ed an d wi l l b e ta k eni nt o c o ns i der at i o n. Coro nado and hi s par ents att ende d the expulsi on he ar i ng, as di d Pr o deh l a nd De anRo b Lathr o pe. Ga vin a nd Offi ce r Ham pto n di d notappe ar . The r e i s no r ec o r d o fthe he ar i ng othe r tha n P r o deh l ’ s wri tt ens um m ar y o fthe pr o c e e di ng s . Ac c o r di ngt o tha tdo c ume nt, Co r o na do was charg ed w i th a seco nd o ffense

— “Fi ghti ng/M ob A cti o n”

— a tthe h e a r i ng . And , P r o de hlwri tes , Co r o na do ad m itt ed to bo t h c h a rg es : “R og er st at ed th at h e d id w alk o ve r a nd l en t su ppo r t to hi s tabl e, s o m e o fwho m he kn ows ar e Lati n K i ngs. . . . Roger sta ted that h e s h ou ld ha v e a c t e d d i ffe r e nt l y a nd wh a th e di d wa s v e r y s t up i d, especi al l y when he i s no t that g oo d offr i ends w i th anyo f them
. ” The s um m ar y a l so re counts that Coro nado’s f ather re m a r k e d , in E n glis h, th at h e w as “v er y s u rp ris ed ath is son” and that he and hi s wife s up portthe schoo l ’ s e ff or ts to preve nt ga ng viole nce but bel i eve d that Cor onado had j us t “g o t ca ug htup i n the mom en t an d di d s o m ethi ng st u p id .” A d d itio n ally , C or on ad o’s fat h er rela te d th at h is s o n ha d n e v e r b e e n i n t r o ub l e b e f o r e , tha tthe pa r e nt s h o pe th at h e w ill att en d co lleg e, a n d t h at th e e n tir e fa m ily is i nvo l v e d in c o a c hinga nd p l a y i ngt e a m s po r t s . F i na l l y, Coro nado’s f atheras ked thatthe schoo l a u th or i ti es “l oo k athi s so n a s ani ndi vi du al, fi nd tha t he i s a g o o d k i d a nd not ex pel hi m . ” F ol l owing the he ar i ng, Pro dehl propos ed to the Boa rd o fE du cati on a tw o- sem est erexpuls i on, wh i ch w oul d encom pass the r em ai nd ero fthe spri ng se m est er of20 08 ( w hi ch h as n ow ended) and the f al lse m est ero f 2008
. On orar ound Febr uary25 , 20 08, Cor onado r ecei ved noti ce that the Boar d had adopted Pro dehl’ s r eco m m endati on; he was notto r etur n to scho olunti l 20 09.N o. 08

- 1850 5 Coro nado r esponded by fil in g i n the dist ri ct c ourta sprawling, fi ftee n-c ount com pla i nt, nam i ng as defendants th e sc ho o l di st r i ct, Pr o deh l, Ga vin, a nd a n a ss i st an t pr i nc i pa l a tthe h i g h s c ho o l
. A t the s a me t i me Co r o na do m oved f o r a pr el i m i na r y i nj unc ti o n tha t woul d l i ft th e expulsi on unti l a seco nd h ear i ng “with Du e Pr oce ss safeguar ds” co uld t ake place. A s r el evantto hi s r equest for a p re l i m i n ar y inj u n c tio n, C or on ad o c laim s t h at h is ex pul si o n v i o l ated his r i g htt o due pr o ce ss b ec au se the sc ho o l di st r i ctdi d notpro vi de hi s pa r en ts wi tha S pan i sh

lan gu ag e in te rp re te r, or allo w h im to cr os s-e x am in e G av in an d Offi cer H am p ton, or create a conte m p oran eou s record o fthe h e a r i ngb e f o r e P r o de hl
. T he di s t r i c tc o ur to rder ed ane vi den ti ar y he ar i ngo n the mot i o n. On M ar ch 12, 20 08, Cor onado, Cor onado’ s par ents, Pro dehl, Gavi n , and Offi cerH am pton, am ong othe rs , te st ified ab ou t t h e e ve n ts lea d in g up to C or on ad o’s ex p u lsi on. Cor onado t est i fi ed that, co ntra ryto hi s wri tte n state m en t and Prod eh l’ s su m m ary of th e exp ulsion h eari ng, he di d no t su ppo r t o r e ncou rage an y o ne i n the sc h oo l ca fet er ia t h at d ay . A c c or d in g t o C or on ad o, G av in had “fl at- out l i e[ d]” about h i s r ol e in the i nci dent, H a mpt o n ha d int i mi da t e d h i m i nt o f a l s e l y c o nfe s s i ng, an d Prod eh l ha d m isr ep resen ted i n h is w ritten su m m ary th at he admi tt ed a r o l e i n th e ca fet er i a con fr o nt at i o n. Gav i n, Ham pto n a nd Pr o deh l, o n the other hand, c o nfi r m ed th e ac cur ac y o fthe i rea r l i erre po r ts and deni ed an y mi s r e pr e s e nt a t i o n o r i nt i mi da t i o n. No t a b l y, Co r o na do and his pare nts acknowle dged that they had rec ei ved advance no ti ce o fthe expulsi on hea ring and the charg e of “ S ubv er si ve Or g an i za ti o ns . ” Cor o na do , mor eo ve r,6 N o. 08

- 1850

co nc ede d tha t he was o ffered a n oppo r tu ni tyt o r es po nd to the charg es and reb ut the evi dence pres ented by schoo l o ffi ci al s, b u t he decl i ned. The part i es agr ee that Coro nado l ear ned ofthe seco nd char ge, “F i ghting/M ob Acti o n, ” a t th e he ar i ng . Ye t Cor o na do ha s ne ve r mai ntai n ed t hat he w as surpri sed bythe seco nd char ge orthat he asked f or m ore t im e so that he cou ld resp ond m ore fully t o the ne w char ge. Cor o na do a l so t es ti fi ed th at his f athe r ha d c al l ed th e sc ho o l pri o r to the hea r i ngto re que sta tr an sl at o r “[ b] uthe l eft a vo i cem ai l and nobo dy cal l ed back
. ” Accordi ng to Coro nado, hi s fatherm ade the re quest a t the hear i ng as w elland P rod eh l d en ied th e acco m m od ation. Coron ad o’s f a the r a l s o t e s t i fi e d, thr o ugh a n i nt e r pr e t e r, tha t “ on th e w ay in he ask ed the offi cial ifh e c o u ld h ave an i nt erpr e t e r b e c a us e h e di dn ’ te xa c t l y u nd e r s t a nd ” the p r o c e e dings bu t “w as told th at he w ou ldn ’t need an interp reter” because hi s s on w as prese nt. Pro dehl, m eanw hi l e, te sti fi ed th at h e a sk ed th e p ar e n t s a t t h e o u ts et of th e h ea rin g if they needed an i nter prete r and w as tol d no. A t th e concl usi on o fthe evi denti ar y hea ring, J am es M itc h em , th e p rin c ip al a t B olin gb ro ok H igh Sc h oo l, tes tifi ed that the pr opose d i nj uncti on would have a perni ci ous e ffect o n hi s s taffand the othe r students i nvol ved i n the i nci dent: Ithi nktha t i t woul d ha ve a ne g ati ve i m pac t o n the sta ffm or al e, Ithi nk tha t i t would e m bol den students w ho were in vo l ved i n thi s par ti cul arr ule s infr acti on to perce i ve th at , in f act, theycan vi ol ate part i cul ar schoo l r ule s a nd notbe hel d acco untabl e. A nd Ibel i eveN o. 08

- 1850 7 th at h is pr es en c e ba c k in ou r b u ild i n g , p ar tic u lar ly at thi s j uncture, would do j ust that. The di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed th e pr el i m i na r y i nj unc ti o n. The cour t co ncl ud ed that Coro nado had f ai l ed to dem onst ra te a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood o fsucce ss on the m er i ts, and that, i n a ny e ve nt, the pr o po se d i nj unc ti o n wo uld ha r m the p u b lic in te re st . D u e p ro c es s, th e c ou rtw ro te , req u ire s o n ly th ata s tu den t f ac i ngexpul si o n r ec ei ve no ti ce o fthe ch ar g es ag ains t hi m , no ti ce o fthe t i m e o fthe he ar i ng, a nd a ful l o pp o r t un i t y t o b e h e a r d. See R em er v. B urlin gto n A rea Sch. D is t. , 2 8 6 F
. 3 d 1 0 0 7, 1 0 1 0

- 1 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 )
. Co r o na do re cei ved al l thr ee, acc or ding to the c ourt, and the evi dence sh ow ed th at h e a d m itt ed w ro n gd oin g a t t h e h ea rin g. In r ea ch i ng thi s co nc l us i o n the c o ur t cr edi te d the t es ti m o ny ofthe defe nd ants’ witnes ses o verthe te st im ony of C orona d o and his f ath er. Th e cou rt exp lai ne d , m oreover, th atCo r o na do ha d no c o ns ti tu ti o na l r i g htt o c r o ss - ex ami ne Ga v i n o r Offi c e r Ha mp t o n a tthe e xp ul s i o n he a r i ng . And , th e cou r t co nt i nue d, Co r o na do ’ s co nt en ti o n tha t th e schoo l w as re quir ed to provi de an i nter pr et er was base l ess as wellbec ause the e vi dence showed that a n i nter prete r w as not needed: Cor onado’ s f ather had as ked que stio ns in E ng lish a tthe e xp ul s i o n he a r i nga nd ma de sta tem ents “r ega rdi ng Pl ai n tiff’ s e du cati on, act i vi ti es an d f u tu re plan s as w ellas his ow n view s of th e sch ool’ s eff or ts to com bat gang acti vi ty. ” Fi nal l y, the cour t r ej ecte d Cor o na do ’ s cl ai m tha t Pr o deh l ’ s si x- pag e su m m ar y o fthe ex p u lsio n h ea rin g w as in ad eq u at e. A s for th e p u b lic interest, th e cou rt reason ed that sch ool ad m inistrators m ust hav e “ the a uthor i ty to pu n ish co nd uct such a s that o fPl aint i ffi fthe y a r e to pr o vi de a safe sc ho o l e nv i r o n-8 N o. 08

- 1850

m ent. ” Order i ng the scho oldi str i ct to readm i t Cor onado, th e co ur t co nt i nue d, “ woul d di m i ni shtha t au th o r i tya nd c ou ld th re at en th e s afe ty of st u d en ts .”

II. A par tys ee k i nga pr el i m i na r yi nj unc ti on m ust demonstr ate thathe i s re aso nabl y l i kel y to succee d o n the m er i ts, th athe i s ex per i en cingi r r epa r ab l e ha r m tha t ex ce eds a ny h ar m hi s o pp onent w i l l sufferi fthe i nj uncti on i ssues , th athe l acks a n a dequa te r emedy a t l aw, a nd tha t th e inj u n c tio n w ou ld n oth ar m th e p u b lic in te re st
. Chr i s t i an Leg a l So c’y v. Wa lk er, 4 5 3 F .3 d 85 3, 85 9 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ). “If th e m o vingpa r tymeet s t hi s th r es ho l d b ur den, the di st r i ctc o ur t wei g hs the f ac to r s ag ains t o ne a no th eri n a sli d ing scale a n alysis
. . . w hich i s to say the district cou rt m us t ex er ci se i ts di sc r et i o n t o de te r m i ne whethe r the bal ance o fhar m s wei ghs in f avo r ofthe m oving par ty or w he the r the no nmo v i ng pa r t y o r pu b l i c i nt e r e s t wi l l be h ar m ed s u fficie n tly t h at t h e inj u n c tio n sh ou ld be d en ied .” Id. ; see Joeln er v. Vil l. of Wa sh. P a rk, 37 8 F
. 3d 613, 61 9 ( 7th Cir
. 20 04)
. I n re vi ew i ng the deni alof a pre l i m i naryi nj uncti on, thi s co urt exam i nes l egal co ncl usi ons de novo , fi n d i n g s o ff a c tf o r c l e a r e r r o r, a n d th e b a l a n c i n go fh a r ms for ab u se of d isc re tio n . Jo elner, 378 F. 3d at 620. The sc ope o f appell ate r evi ew i s, however, l i m i ted t o th e inj uncti on d ec isio n its elf a n d th os e is su es ine x tr ica b ly b ou n d t o it. See, e. g., Sh affe r v. G lobeP rote cti on, Inc. , 721 F. 2d 1121 , 11 24 ( 7th Cir
. 19 83) ( “Cases applying § 1292 ( a) ( 1) have hel d that othe r i nci dentalo rder s o r i ssues nonappeal abl e in and of them sel ves but in f act i nt erdepend ent with the or derN o. 08

- 1850 9

Stra ng ely , C o ro na d o co nstru es the d istrict cou rt’ s ord er as a 1 “d en ial of a p erm an en t injun ction ” b eca u se “ the re is no t a pos s ibi l ity o fa t ri al onthe i s s ue ofi nj unc t i ve re l i ef
. ” W i thout qu estio n t h e d istrict cou rt con sid ered C or on ad o’s m otio n to be one fo r a pre l i m i nary inj uncti on. Reg ardles s, thi s court w ould hav e j uris dicti on ov er Co ronad o’ s int erl ocutory app eal even ifthe d ist ri ct court had denied a m oti on f or a pe r mane nt inj u n ct io n . S ee 2 8 U .S.C . § 1 2 9 2 (a )(1); A sset A ll oc ation & M g m t. Co
. v . We s t e r n Emp l o y e r s I ns. C o. , 892 F. 2d 566, 568- 69 ( 7th Cir
. 19 90 ) (ho ld ing th at g ran t o f p erm an en t injun ction is ap p eala b le eve n thoughi ti s “a n i nt er l oc ut or y or der [ that ] doe s no twin d up the li ti gati on” and “it is n ot a tem porary or prel im inary i njunctio n ” ). g r a nt i ngo r de ny i nga n i nj un cti o n maya l s o b e r e v i e we d, but o nl y to the e xtent that they b earupon and are cent ra l to the grant or d en ialof th e inj un ction.”). Coro nado ass er ts on a pp ea l t hat the di str i ct c ourter re d i n de ny i ngthe p r e l i mi na r y i nj un c t i o n b e c a us e, Co r o na do i n s i s t s , h e h a s a r e a s o n a b l e l i k e l i h o o d o f s u c c e s s o n t he m er i ts w ith r esp ect to hi s due pro cess cl ai m . The cr ux of 1 hi s a rgum ent o n the m eri ts i s that he w as enti tl ed to co ns i der ab l y m ore pr o ce ss tha n h e r ec ei ve d g i ve n the se ve r i tyo fhi s puni sh m en t. I n G o ss v. Lo pez , 419 U .S. 56 5 ( 1975 ) , the S up re m e Cour t recogni zed a hi gh- schoo l student’ s “ l egi tim ate enti tl em ent t o a publ i c educati on as a pr o per ty interes t whi chi s pr o te ct ed bythe Due Pro cess Cla u se and w hi ch m ay not be t ake n away f or m i sco nd uct witho ut adhere nce to t h e m in im u m p ro c edures re quir ed by that Clause
. ” Id. at 574. T hat d eci si on o utl i ned the pr oce du ra l pro tect ion s e nj oye d by a publi c- schoo l10 N o. 08

- 1850 st u d en t fa c in g a br ief s u sp en sio n . Id
. And i n R em er th is cour t s ugges te d t ha t t he s a me gov er ni ng sa f eg ua r ds

— no ti ce of t he c ha r g es , no ti ce o fthe t i m e o fthe disc i plinaryhear i ng, and a m eani ngful opportunity t o be he ard

— apply to a s tud en t th re ate ned w i th a f our- yea r ex p u lsio n . See R em er, 28 6 F. 3d at 1010

- 11. D ue pro cess does not, however, r equi re “a j ud i ci alo r q u as i

-j ud i ci al tr ial”

— w ith all of th e fe at u re s an d sa feg u ar d s o f, e.g., a del i nque nc y pr o ce eding

—bef or e a scho olm ay pu ni sh m i s c on d u c t. Linwoo d v. B d. of Ed uc. , 46 3 F
. 2d 763, 76 9- 70 ( 7th Ci r. 19 72); s ee G o ss , 419 U .S. at 5 83 ; Rem er, 2 86 F. 3d at 1010

- 11. A l though the G o ss cour t r ese rv ed the ques tion w hetherm or e for m alpro cedures m i ght b e nec es sar y for lon ge r su sp en sio n s o r ex p u lsio n s, R em er can f ai rl y b e re ad to sta nd f orthe propos i ti on tha t expu l si on does not re quir e a m or e e l abor ate hear i ng i n or der t o com portwith du e pr oce ss so lon g as the s tudent r ecei ves the “ fund am en ta l l y f ai r pr o ce dur es ” set o uti n G o ss . See R em er, 28 6 F.3 d at10 10 -11 ; s e eal s o L am b v. Panhan dl e C m ty. U ni tSch. D ist. No . 2 , 826 F. 2d 526, 52 8 ( 7th Ci r. 19 87) ( expla i ni ng tha t a pen al tyt an ta m o untt o e xpul si on ent i tl es the s tu den t to som e op p ortu nity to p resen t m iti gating argu m en ts). Cor o na do ’ s appe al f al te r s be ca us e he r ec ei ve d no ti ce a nd a m ean ingful op p o rtu nity to be he ard

— an d therefore ca nno t demons tr at e an y l i k eli hood o fs ucc es s o n the m er its
. See R em er, 28 6 F
. 3d a t 1010

- 11. Pro dehl’ s l ett er i nf o r m ed Cor o nad o a nd hi s par en ts o fthe da te o fthe hear i ng as well as the c harg e o f“S ubver si ve Organi zati ons. ” M or eov er, Coro nado’s conta ct w i th Offi cer H am pton

— even byCo r o na do ’ s ac co unt

— y i e l d e d s o me und er sta nd i ng o fthe charg es aga i nst hi m . Coro nado doesN o. 08

- 1850 11 not dispute that he had an o pp or tuni ty to prese nt ev i dence a tthe h e a r i nga nd r e s po nd t o the c ha r g e s . Bu tCor ona do d o e s c h a l l e n g e th e s c h o o l ’ s f a i l u r e t o i n f o r m h i m in advance o fthe h e a r i ngo fthe s e c o nd c ha rg e

— “Fi ghti ng/M ob Acti o n. ” As thi s co ur t no te d i n Sm ith ex rel. Sm ith v. Sev ern , 129 F. 3d 419 (7th C i r. 19 97) , tho ugh, sa m e- day not i ce o f sch ool d iscipli na ry cha r g e s p asses cons titution al m us ter. Id. at42 8-2 9 (“ A s fo r th e t im in g of t h e n ot ice , no d ela y is n e c e s s a r y b e t we e n th e ti me n o t i c e i s g i v e n a n d th e t i me ofthe disc ussi on with the student. ” ( ci ti ng G o ss , 419 U .S. at 582)). Coro nado acknow l edges Rem er but neve rthel ess ar gues th ata s tu den t f ac ing ex pul si o n i s en ti tl ed to s o m ethi ng m or e than noti ce a nd an o pp or tuni ty t o b e heard. Other ci rcui ts have accepte d C or onado’ s pre m i se that G o ss p ro vid es m er ely a st ar tin g p oin t fo r d u e-p ro c e s s an aly sis i n the expulsi on co ntext; those courts have l oo ked to th e balanc ing test of M at he ws v. Eld r i dge, 42 4 U.S
. 31 9 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , t o de t e r mi ne wh e the r an y thingfur the r i s r e qu i r e d. See Wa tson ex rel. Wa tson v. B eck el , 24 2 F
. 3d 1237, 12 40 ( 10th C ir. 20 01 ); Palm e rex re l
. Pal m e rv. M e r l uzzi, 86 8 F
. 2d 90, 95 (3d C ir. 19 89 ); N ewsom e v. B atavia Local S chool D is t. , 84 2 F
. 2d 92 0, 9 23

- 24 ( 6th Ci r . 1 98 8)
. Ye t no ne o ftho se de ci si o ns ha s r e qu i r e d a ny o f the a c c o mm o da t i o ns tha tCo r o na do i ns i s t s h e wa s de ni e d. C o r o n a d o fi r s ta r g u e s th a t h e h a d a r i g h tt o c r o s s - e x a mi ne Gavi n and O ffi cerH am pton

— and the deni alo fthat ass er ted r i ght pr om i ses a re aso nabl e l i kel i hood o fsucce ss12 N o. 08

- 1850

For thi s propos i t i on ( and m any othe rs ) Cor ona do r el i es on 2 C ol qui t tv. R i ch Tw p . High Schoo lDi st
. No. 227, 699 N
. E.2d 1109 (Ill . A p p . C t. 19 98 ), w hich is no t bin d ing p rece d en t on this cou rt. on the m er i ts. The r eco rd co ntai ns no evi dence that 2 C or onad o eve r ask ed that ei therGavi n orH am pton be re quir ed to appear and gi ve tes ti m ony, so i t i s di ffi cul t t o i m agine how he w as denie d the opportuni ty. I n any eve nt, C or on ad o p ro vid es n o fe d er al a u th or ity to su p p or t h is po si ti o n, a nd the o nl y circui t co ur t to de ci de th e qu e s t i o n i n the h i g h- s c ho ol co nt e xt( tha twe h a v e f o un d) re ac h ed th e o p p o s ite co n c lu sio n . S e eNe w s o me, 84 2 F
. 2d at 925- 26. Si m i l ar l y, Cor onado a rgu es thatPro dehl’ s wri tte n sum m ar y o fthe expulsi on hea ring di d not com portwith du e pr oce ss because , Cor ona do cont ends, i t l acks su ff ici en t det ai l
. Aga i n, the r e i s no e vi den ce i n the r ec o rd tha tCo r o na do a s k e d d ur i ngthe e xp ul s i o n he a r i ngtha t a verba tim record be m ad e. A n d , a t six pa ges, Prod eh l’ s sum m ar y pr ovi d es co nsi derabl e deta i l
. Cor onado insi sts th at th e d oc u m en t is rife w ith ina c c u ra c ies , bu t h e is gr aspi ng atst ra w s. Fo r exam ple , Cor onado a rg u es that Pro dehl’ s deni alo fa “Fi rs t Ti m e Offender Recom m endat i on” wa s e r r o r b e c a us e , a s the p a r t i e s a g r e e , Co r o na do was a fi r st
- ti m e o ffen d er. ButPr o deh l t es ti fi ed i n the dist ri ct c ourtthata “Fi rs t Ti m e O ffender Rec om m endat i o n”

— essenti al l y a r eco m m endati on o fl eni ty

— i s di scr eti onar y a nd i s typi cal l y r ese rv ed f orfi rs t- ti m e, m i nor drug o ffenders. Coro nado al so com pla i ns ofthe abse nce o fan inter prete r at the e xpu l si on hea ring. T he d i str i ct court, tho ugh, di d notN o. 08

- 1850 13 add re ss w hetherdue proc ess m i ght r equi re an i nter prete r because the cour t co ncl ud ed that an i nter prete r w as not needed. I n d oin g so, the cour t co nsi dered the exte nt o f C or on ad o’s fat h e r ’s re m ar ks atth e h ea rin g a n d h is abi l i ty to a sk q uesti ons. On app ealCor onado doe s no t dispute th at h i s f atheras ked quest i ons at the e xpu l si on he aringo r tha t he de l i ve r ed a st at ementr eg ar di ng Coro nado’s goal s, co m m ended the scho ol ’ s e ff or ts to com bat gang vi ol ence, and re quested l eni ency f or Co r o na do

— all in E n glis h . C or on ad o ev en c on c ed es in h is bri efthat h is parents can speak “[ c] onver sat i onalEngl i sh or mi ni mal l y fl ue ntEn g l i s h. ” Y e t, de s pi t e the s e c o nc essi ons, Cor onado doe s no t e xplai n w hy a n i nter prete r w as needed, o r how the dist ri ct c ourtco uld have co m m i tte d c l e a r e r r o r i n fi nd i ng tha t a n i nt e r pr e t e r wa s n o tr e qu i r e d. N or does Coron ad o prov ide an y sp ec if ic legal auth ori ty

— othe r than v ague re fer ences to M a thew s an d C olquit t

— to supp or t hi s co ntenti on that he and his pare nts w er e e nti tl ed to an inter prete r as a m att ero fdue proc ess . A nd w e have not f ound a ny author i ty that su p p or ts C or on ad o’s arg u m e n t . H is leg al a rg u m en t, th er efo re , i s i rr el evantand the dist ri ct c ourtwas cor re ct t o avo i d i t. C o r o n a d o ’ s r e ma i n i n ga r g u me n t s ar e n e b u l o u s . He se em s t o a rg u e t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rte rre d b y n otex p licit ly ba l an cingthe ha r m s po se d b y g r an tingo r de ny i ngthe i nj un c t i o n. Bu t i t i s o nl y a fter the m oving par ty m ake s a th re sh old sh ow in g of, am on g ot h er t h in gs , a rea so n ab le like lih oo d of su c c es s o n th e m er its th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtis re q u ire d to co n d u c t t h is in q u iry
. Wa lk er, 45 3 F
. 3d at 859; Jo elner, 3 78 F
. 3d at6 19
. C oronado ne ve r made i t pas t th e f i rs t hur dl e . He a l s o c o nt e nd s tha th e wa s e xp e l l e d for14 N o. 08

- 1850

I n h i s r epl y br i ef, Cor ona do at t em pt s to e xpa nd the s c ope of 3 thi s app eal yet again. H e argues that the sc hool has ex culpatory vi deo f o o t a g e o fth e c a f e t e r i a i n c i de n tb u tc o n c e de s th a tt he di s t r i c t c ou r t ha s no t s e e n the vi de o no r ha s Co r on a do
. Else

w he re C or on a d o fash ion s arg u m en ts un d er th e F irst and Fifth Am en dm en tc onc er ni ng h i s “c oe rc ed c onfes s ion
. ” F i nal l y, C o r o n ad o a sserts that th e on ly sch oo l no w av ailab le to him

— P r e mi e r A c a d e my

— c ann otac c om m odat e hi s l ea rn i ng disa b ili ty. N one ofthe se argum ents w ere dev el oped bef ore the dist ri ct c ourt, and they have no b eari ng on his app eal re g a rd in g th e d en ia l o f th e p re lim in a ry inju n ct io n . “p os tu rin g,” w h ich h e in s i st s is an u n c on st itu tio n ally vague “pol i cy. ” Po stur i ng i s Gavi n’s te rm , tho ugh

— not an y sch ool p oli cy. Gav in use d i t to de scribe C orona d o’s acti ons i n the cafete ri a, and he e l aborat ed on i ts i ntended m ea ni ng at th e he ar i ng : “ g et tingup to e ss en ti al l y b ac kup h is frie n d s, as so c iat es , in th is

— conta i ned i n thi s l ar ge grou p . ” Finall y, C orona d o a r gu es th at th e d istri ct cou rt shoul d have co nsi dered thathe ha s a l ear n in g d i sabi l i ty i n wei g hi ngwhethe r t o g r an t th e pr el i m i na r y i nj unc ti o n. Coro nado did notr aise t hi s a rgum ent b ef or e the di str i ct c o u rt, ho w ev er , so it is w aiv ed on ap p ea l. M etzger v. Il l. 3 StatePo li ce, 519 F.3d 677, 681-82 (7th C ir. 2008). A secon d p roblem w ith C orona d o’s app eal i s his fai lure to co nfr o ntthe di st r i ctco ur t’ s a l te r na ti ve ho l di ng, tha t th e propos ed i nj uncti on would har m the publi c i nter estby unde r m i ni ng th e au th o r i ty o f sc ho o l o ffi ci al s an d thr ea te nin g t h e s afe ty of st u d en t s . T o th is C or on ad o offe rs on ly hi s o pi ni o n tha t Pr i nc i palM i tc he m ’ s te st i m o ny c o nc erni ng the ne ed fo r a s afe e du cati onalenvi ro nm ent “ i s be stN o. 08

- 1850 15 described as specul ati ve and uninf or m ed. ” That re sponse is w oe fu lly in ad eq u at e; C or on ad o n ee d s t o d o b e tt er in or d er to p re va il on ap p ea l.

C ONC L US I ON Coro nado feel s that he w as enti tl ed to “the fullpanopl y” ofdue proc ess , som et h i ng ak i n to the ri ghts enj oye d by a cr i m i nal defendant. N o d ou bt hi s tw o- sem est er ex p u lsio n w as a h ar sh p u n ish m en t. B u t b ec a u s e h is posi ti on i s no t s up port ed by law , and bec ause the di str i ct co ur t di d no t er r i n de ny i nghi s pr el i m i na r y i nj unc ti o n, w e A FFIRM .

8- 12- 08