FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T FEB 7, 2012
J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
No. 1 0- 14 62 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
D.C. Dock et No. 1 :0 8- cv -0 00 77 -CAP

THOMAS HAYDEN BARNES,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

RONALD M. ZACCARI, in di vi du al ly and in hi s o ffi ci al
cap aci ty as Pres id en t o f Val do st a St at e Uni ve rs it y , BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA,

Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 7, 2 01 2)

Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, COX, Cir cu it Ju dg e, an d GOLDBERG, Ju dg e. *

COX, Cir cu it Ju dg e:

Honora ble Richard W. Goldberg
, United States Court of I nterna tional Trade J udg e, sitti ng * by desig nation.In 20 07
, in th e wak e of th e m as sa cre at Virg in ia Tec h
, R o n a l d Za ccar i, th e

Pres i d en t of Vald os ta St at e Uni ve rs it y at th e ti m e, “ ad m in is tra ti ve ly wit hd rew”

(ex pe ll ed ) Tho m as Hay de n Barn es , a st ud en t, on th e gr ou nd th at Barn es pr es en te d a

“ cl ear an d pr es en t da ng er” to th e cam pu s. Barn es su e d Zacca ri in fed eral co ur t,

cl ai m in g th at un de r th e Due Pro ces s Clau se he was du e no ti ce of the ch arg es , an d a

he ari ng to an swe r th em , pr io r to hi s rem ov al fro m cam pu s. The di st ric t co ur t ag reed

wit h Barn es , an d de ni ed Zacc a ri su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

W e aff irm.

In hi s su it
, Barn es joi ne d th e Bo ard of Reg en ts of t h e Uni ve rs it y Sy st em of

Geo rg ia as a de fen da nt

. His cl ai m ag ai ns t th e Bo ard is a st at e-l aw br each of co nt ract

cl ai m fo r da m ag es

. Thi s cl ai m a s s e r t s t ha t th e st ud en t ha nd bo ok an d co nt ract s fo r

st ud en t ho us i ng es ta bl is h bi nd in g ag reem en ts be twee n th e Bo ard an d un iv ers it y

st ud en ts , and th at th e Bo ard bre ach ed th es e ag reem en ts by fai li ng to affo rd hi m th e

pr oc es s du e pr io r to hi s rem ov al fro m cam pu s. The Bo ard so ug ht su m m ary jud gm en t

gr ou nd ed on Elev en th Am en dm en t im m un it y

. The di st ric t co ur t de n i ed th e Bo ard

su m m ary jud gm en t, co nc lu di ng th at by st at ut e Geo rg ia ha s waiv ed it s im m un it y fro m

su it in fed eral co ur t fo r br each of c on tra ct . The Bo ard ap pe al s. We reve rs e.

2I. FACTS

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Zacca ri’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y an d th e Bo ard ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on Elev en th

Am en dm en t im m

un it y

. On th i s i n t erl oc ut or y ap pe al fro m th at or de r, we vi ew th e

fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no n- m ov in g pa rty. Ja cks on v. Sa ul s , 20 6 F.3 d

11 56 , 1 16 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Thu s, we st at e th e fact s in th e li gh t

m os t fa vo rab le to Barn es

.

A. BACKGROUND

In 20 05
, Barn es en ro ll e d i n Vald os ta St at e Uni ve rs it y (“ VSU”), a pu bl ic

in st it ut io n in th e Uni ve rs it y Sy st em of Geo rg ia

. He su bs eq ue nt ly le ft VSU to at te nd

a di ffer en t sc ho ol
, bu t re-e nr ol le d in Ja nu ary 20 07

. Barn es su ffer ed fro m an xi et y an d

ag or ap ho bi a at th e ti m e. Dur in g hi s fir st te rm at VSU, Barn es be ga n m eet in g wit h a

th erap is t at th e VSU co un se li ng cen te r, Leah McM il la n. He re su m ed ses si on s wi th

McM il la n up on ret ur ni ng to VSU in 20 07

. Dur in g th e ti m e pe rio d rel ev an t t o th is

ap pe al
, Barn es was on acad em ic pr ob at io n. Bu t he was m ak in g su ffi ci en t acad em ic

pr og res s t o re m ai n a st ud en t at VSU.

The Bo ard is an arm of th e St at e of Geo rg ia

. Und er th e Geo rg ia co ns ti tu ti on ,

it ha s au th or it y to ov ers ee an d ad m in is te r th e Uni ve rs it y Sy st em of Geo rg ia

. Zacca ri

was t h e p r e s i d e n t of VSU at th e ti m e in qu es ti on

. Dur in g hi s te nu re, Zacca ri ha d

3de ve lo pe d a m as te r pl an fo r th e cam pu s, whi ch in cl ud ed co ns tru ct in g a ne w pa rk in g

de ck

. In Mar ch 20 07
, th e VSU st ud en t ne wsp ap e r r a n a st or y de ta il in g th e pl an to

bu il d t he pa rk in g d eck

.

W he n Barn es le arn ed ab ou t th e pl an s fo r th e pa rk in g de c k
, h e b ecame

co nc ern ed ab ou t it s en vi ro nm en ta l im pa ct an d de ci de d to op po se it

. He po st ed a

se rie s of flyers aro u n d cam pu s, em ai le d VSU of

fic ia ls an d st ud en ts ab ou t hi s

co nc ern s, an d po st ed in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e pr ojec t to hi s Face bo ok web pa ge

. Zacca ri

sa w on e of Barn es ’s flyers an d was di sp le as ed

. Thro ug h a st ud en t en v i r o n m en ta l

gr ou p, Zacca ri id en ti fie d Barn es as th e so ur ce of th e flye r s

. B e c a u se th e st ud en t

gr ou p ex pr es se d co nc ern s ab ou t Zacca ri’s di sp le as ur e, Barn es wro te Zacca ri an

ap ol og y sa y in g th at he di d no t wan t hi s “ act io ns to be pe rcei ve d as a pe rs on al ‘atta ck ’

or to jeop ard iz e o th er en vi ro nm en ta l i ni ti at iv es on cam pu s.” (Dk t. 1 79 -9 at 4 2.)

Bu t Barn es co nt in ue d to vo ic e hi s co nc ern s. He wro te a le tt er to th e ed it or of

th e st ud en t ne wsp ap er ex pr es si ng hi s vi ews

. In th at le tt er, he cri ti ci zed th e de ci si on

to bu il d th e pa rk in g de ck as sh or t-s ig ht ed as well as a was te of un iv ers it y real es ta te

an d $3 0 m il li on

. Barn es al so le arn ed th at th e Bo ard wou ld m eet to co ns id er ap pr ov al

of th e pa rk in g d e ck on Apr il 17

. He co nt act ed se ve ral Bo ard m em be rs di rect ly to

vo ic e h is co nc ern s. Ba rn es ’s m es sa ge s wer e res pe ct fu l.

4W he n Zacca ri le arn ed th at Barn es ha d c o n t act ed m em be rs of th e Bo ard

di rect ly, h e su m

m on ed hi m t o h is of

fic e on Apr il 16

. Dur in g th at m eet in g, Zacca ri

ex pl ai ne d th e reas on s fo r bu il di ng th e pa rk in g de ck an d ex pr es se d fru st rat io n wit h

Barn es ’s co nt in ue d op po si ti on

. (Dk t. 19 0 at 11 4– 19 .) Thi s li ti ga ti on ari se s ou t of th e

ev en ts whi ch un fo ld ed fol lo win g t ha t m eet in g.

B. BARNES’S ALL EGEDLY THREATEN ING BEHAVIOR

The pa rti cu la r de ta il s of Barn es ’s be ha vi or are la rg el y un di sp ut ed

. Bu t th e

pa rti es di sp ut e th e in fere nc es th at can be dr awn fro m hi s be ha vi or

. Th u s , w e

ch arac te riz e th is be ha vi or in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Barn es

.

On Apr il 16
, th e sa m e da y Barn es m et wit h Zacca ri, a st ud en t at Virg in ia Tech

sh ot an d ki ll ed th irt y pe op le

. The sh oo ti ng al arm ed Zacca ri an d ot he r of fic ia ls in th e

Uni ve rs it y Sy st em of Geo rg ia

. Zacca ri sa y s th is tra ge dy pu t hi m in a he ig ht en ed st at e

of ale rt.

Sh or tl y aft er th ei r m eet in g, Barn es se nt Zacca ri th ree em ai ls . On e ex pl ai ne d

Barn es ’s ra t io na le fo r po st in g hi s flyers ab ou t th e pa rk in g de ck as well as hi s

po li ti cal ph il os op hy. Ano th er li st ed ot he r un iv ers it ie s whi ch em pl oy sh ut tl e syste m s.

The th ird em ai l in cl ud ed a refe ren ce to cu tt in g do wn th e la st tre e on East er Is la nd

.

It c ha ract eri zed th e in ha bi ta nt ’s d eci si on to cu t do wn th at tre e as m ak in g e co no m ic

s e n se un de r th ei r bu si ne ss pl an

. The se em ai ls sh ow Barn es was pa ss io na te ab ou t

5en vi ro nm en ta l is su es

. He al so a d m it te d a wil li ng ne ss to res or t to co nf ro nt at io n

po li ti cs

. Bu t th e em ai ls c o n t ai n no ov ert th reat s an d do no t su gg es t th at Barn es

1

wan te d t o h arm

an y on e.

A f e w d a ys la te r, a le tt er fro m Barn es ap pe ared in th e in -b ox of on e of

Zacca ri’s st aff m em

be rs

. I t i s un cl ear ho w th e le tt er arri ve d. Zacca ri co nt en ds th e

le tt er’s arri va l co m

pr om is ed th e se cu rit y of h i s of fic e. (Dk t. 17 7- 2 at 18 .) In th e

le tt er, Barn es req ue st ed an ex em pt io n f r om th e $1 00 fee earm ark ed fo r th e pa rk in g

de ck ’s co ns tru ct io n an d of fere d to d o n a t e th at su m to a cam pu s en vi ro nm en ta l

pr og ram . Li ke Barn es ’s em ai ls , th e le tt er i s n ot th reat en in g. Ba rn es ha d n o fu rth er

co nt act wit h Zac cari

.

Unb ek no wns t to Barn es , Zacca ri was m on it or in g hi s Face bo ok web pa ge

. A

few da y s be fo re Barn es m et wit h Za c c a r i
, he po st ed a sa ti ric al co ll ag e to th at

web pa ge

. The co ll ag e’s ti tl e read “ S.A.V.E.—Zaccar i Me m or ia l Park in g Garag e”

an d in cl ud ed a po rtr ai t of th e pr es id en t. Zacca ri di d no t le arn ab ou t th is co ll ag e un ti l 2

aft er hi s m eet in g wit h Barn es

. A few da y s aft er th ei r m eet in g, Barn es po st ed se ve ral

Ba rnes’ s first email ref

err ed approving ly to the may oral administration of Dennis Kucinich 1 and his willingne ss to resort to confr ontation politi cs. (Dkt. 177- 12.)

The collag e also included imag es o f t h e p roposed parking deck, a bulldoz er, a g lobe 2 flattene d by a tire trea d, an asthma inhaler, and a public bus under a red circ le and slash. I t included sloga ns such as “more smog,” “bus sy stem that might have been,” and “climate chang e s t at ement for Pre sident Z acc ari.” (Dkt. 179-9 a t 51.)

6m or e it em s. The se in cl ud ed so m e un rel at ed m at eri al
, a st at us up da te sa y in g, “ Hay de n

Barn es is cl ean in g ou t an d rear ran gi ng hi s ro om an d th us , hi s m in d, so he ho pe s,” an d

a li nk to an art ic le on sal on .co m ti tl ed “ I’m

m en ta ll y il l b ut I’m no m as s m

ur de rer.”

(Dk t. 2 44 at 9– 10 .) The a ut ho r of th at art ic le off

ered a read er ad vi ce ab ou t d eal in g

wit h th e st ig m a of m en ta l il ln es s in th e wak e of th e tra ge dy at Virg in ia Tech

. Zacca ri 3

le arn ed of t he se it em s o n Ap ril 23

.

C. ZACCARI’S RESPONSE TO BARNES’S BEHAVIOR

Im m ed ia te ly aft er the ir Apri l 16 m eet in g, Zac cari be ga n l oo ki ng for a way to

rem ov e B a r n e s fro m cam pu s. He rev ie wed Barn es ’s acad em ic wor k as a po ss ib le

ba si s fo r rem ov in g hi m fro m cam pu s. Zacca ri’s effo rts in te ns ifi ed on Apr il 20

. The

da y be fo re, Barne s’s l et te r to th e ed it or ha d app eare d in th e st ud en t news pa pe r, an d

at so m e po in t aft er th at , Zacca ri le arn ed of Barn es ’s Face bo ok co ll ag e. Ove r th e ne xt

two week s, Zacca ri co nv en ed no le ss th an fiv e m eet in gs ab ou t Barn es

. At th es e

Specifica lly
, the article answe red a letter to its author, Cary Tennis. The letter writer states 3 that she is mentally ill and felt stigmatized by the rec ent shootings at Virg inia Tec h. Tennis responds that the universe is crue l but there is littl e we can do about it. She encour ag ed the letter writer to live in the world as it is, to do the things she needs to do to g et by
, and not worry about what other people think because that is bey ond her c ontrol. (Dkt. 177–30.) The article also contained a prominent adver tisement for webshots.com. The ad encour ag ed viewer s to “Shoot it. Upload it. Get Famous.” (Dkt. 177-30 at 4.) I n other words, the ad asks people
to upload their own videos onto the internet and potentially become famous. (Dkt. 244 at 10 n.11.)

7m eet in gs , Zacc a r i ch arac te riz ed Barn es ’s be ha vi or as th reat en in g. No on e on hi s 4

st aff ag reed wit h hi s as se ss m en t. Two m en ta l he al th pr of es si on al s, McM il la n an d th e

Dire ct or of th e VSU co un se li ng cen te r, Dr. Vict or Mo rg an , r ep eat ed ly t ol d Za ccar i

th at Barn es was n ot a th reat to hi m se lf or ot he rs

. Oth er un iv ers it y off ic ia ls ag reed 5

am on g t he m se lv es th at Zaccar i was ov erre act in g.

Dur in g th is ti m e, Zacca ri to ld a VSU po li ce of fic er, Ann Farm er, th at so m eo ne

ha d tri pp ed th e al arm syste m at hi s ho us e th e week en d of Apr il 13 an d th at he ha d

rece iv ed pr an k cal ls as ki ng fo r “ th e bu si ne ss of fic er.” Zacca ri bel ie ve d Barn es was

res po ns ib le

. Farm e r s ug ge st ed th at Zacca ri fil e a fo rm al po li ce rep or t an d ge t a

res tra in in g or de r ag ai ns t Barn es

. He de cl in ed

. A f t er th ei r co nv ers at io n, Farm er

in ve st ig at ed Barn es an d d et erm in ed he was n ot a th reat

. Barn es de ni es tri pp in g th e

al arm an d m ak in g t he pra nk cal ls

.

Zacca ri ex pl or ed se ve ral ot he r av en ue s to rem ov e Barn es fro m cam pu s. The se

in cl ud ed a m en ta l he al th wit hd rawal an d a di so rd erl y co nd uc t ch arg e. VSU’s m en ta l

he al th wit hd rawal po li cy req ui res a m en ta l he al th pr of es si on al to reco m

m en d th at th e

I n particula

r, Z acc ari appea

red conce rned that the word “memoria l” in Ba rne s ’s co llag e 4 ref err ed to his death.

Additionally
, afte r her first meeting with the president, McMillan contac ted Ba rnes’ s 5
psy chiatrist, Dr. Kevin W inders, a b o u t Z acc ari’s conce rns. Dr. W inders said that Ba rnes was not

a threa t and ag ree d to rea ssess Ba rnes. He conducte d this evalua tion and conclude d Ba rnes was not

a threa t. He informed McMillan of his conclusions, but the rec ord does not show that Zac ca ri lear ned about Dr . Winders’s evalua tion prior to Ba rnes’ s withdrawa l.

8st ud en t be wit hd rawn be cau se he or sh e rep res en ts a da ng er to hi m se lf or ot he rs

. Thi s

po li c y gu aran te es th e st ud en t an in fo rm al he ari ng be fo re th e wit hd rawal an d th e

op po rtu ni ty to pr es en t pe rti ne nt ev id en ce on hi s be ha lf. Zacca ri’s st aff co ns is te nt ly

sa id th is po li cy di d no t ap pl y to Barn es be cau se he was no t a th reat

. Zacca ri al so

lo ok ed in to br in gi n g a di so rd erl y co nd uc t ch arg e ag ai ns t Barn es un de r th e VSU

St ud en t Co de of Co nd uc t. Bu t th is ch arg e al so req ui res a he ari ng whe re th e st ud en t

can pr es en t ev id en ce on hi s beh al f. Zacca ri ul ti m at el y reject ed th es e op ti on s as too

“ cu m be rs om e.” (Dk t. 1 90 -1 at 9 5.)

I ns te ad
, Zacca ri de ci de d th at he co ul d “ ad m in is tra ti ve ly wit hd raw” Barn e s

un de r Po li cy 19 02

. Thi s po li cy , whi ch is co nt ai ne d in th e Bo ard ’s Po li cy Man ua l an d

ap pl ic ab le to all in st it ut io ns in th e Uni ve rs it y Sy st em of Ge or gi a, pr ov id es :

Any st ud en t, facu lt y m em be r, ad m in is tra to r, or em

pl oyee, act in g in di vi du al ly or in co nc ert wit h ot he rs , who cl earl y ob st ru ct s or di sr up ts , or at te m pt s to ob st ru ct or di sr up t an y te ach in g, res earc h, ad m in is tra ti ve , di sc ip li na ry , or pu bl ic se rv ic e act iv it y , or an y ot he r act iv it y au th or iz ed
to be di sc ha rg ed or he ld o n an y cam pu s of th e Uni ve rs it y Sy st em is

co ns id er e d b y th e Bo ard to ha ve co m m it te d an act of gr os s irr es po ns ib il it y an d sh al l be su bjec t to di sc ip li na ry pr oc ed ur es , po ss ib ly

res ul ti ng in di sm is sa l o r te rm in at io n o f em pl oym en t.

(Dk t. 1 79 -7 at 4 9.) Zac cari an no un ced hi s d eci si on to “ ad m in is tra ti ve ly w it hd raw”

Barn es at a May 3 m eet in g wi th st aff a nd ot he rs . He di d n ot ask th os e p res en t if he

9was m ak in g th e rig ht de ci si on , an d no on e to ld hi m he was

. Co ll ect iv el y th ou gh
, th e

gr ou p a gr eed th at Barn es sh ou ld be wit hd rawn on May 7, a ful l fo ur da y s l at er.

Zacca ri al so co nc lu de d th at Po li cy 19 02 di d no t req ui re th at he pr ov id e Barn es

wit h pr i o r n o t i c e of hi s de ci si on or a he ari ng to op po se it

. Bu t hi s in -h ou se la wy er

Lav ern e Gas ki ns warn ed Zacca ri, on at le as t th ree oc cas io ns , th at th e “ ad m in is tra ti ve

wit hd rawal ” wou ld vi ol at e Barn es ’s du e pr oc es s rig ht s. Zacca r i ig no red th es e

co nc ern s an d t ol d Gas ki ns to dra ft a let te r in fo rm in g B arn es of h is de ci si on

.

On May 7, th e VSU po li ce de pa rtment sl ip pe d Zacca ri’s le tt er un de r Barn es ’s

do rm roo m do or . It s ai d:

As a res ul t of rece nt act iv it ie s di rect ed to ward s m e by yo u, in cl ud ed bu t no t li m it ed to th e at ta ch ed th reat en in g do cu m en t [Bar ne s’s F a c e bo ok co ll ag e], y ou are co ns id ered to pr es en t a cl ear an d pr es e n t da ng er to th is cam

pu s. The refo re, pu rs ua nt to Bo ard of Reg en ts ’ po li cy 19 02
, y ou a r e he reb y no ti fie d th at y ou ha ve be en ad m in is tra ti ve ly wit hd rawn fro m

[VSU] effe ct iv e Ma y

7, 2 00 7.

(Dk t. 19 0- 2 a t 4 7.) Th e le tt er co nd it io ne d Barn es ’s r ead m is si on on su bm it ti ng two

le tt ers f r o m m en ta l he al th pr of

es si on al s st at in g he was no t a da ng er to hi m se lf or

ot he rs an d th at he wou ld be rece iv in g th erap y whi le en ro ll ed at VSU. The le tt er al so

in fo rm ed Barn e s h e c o u l d ap pe al hi s wit hd rawal di rect ly to th e Bo ard

. W it hi n

t w e nt y -fo ur ho ur s, Barn es su bm it te d th e req ue st ed le tt ers to Zacca ri, who de ci de d

th ey di d no t m eet th e st a n d ard fo r read m is si on

. The pa rti es di sp ut e whe th er th e

10le tt ers act ua ll y m et th is st an da rd

. Barn es th en ap pe al ed Zacca ri ’s de ci si on to th e

Bo ard
, whi ch refe rred th e m at te r to an ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge

. By Decem be r 20 07
,

Barn es ha d st il l no t rece iv ed a he ari ng

. In Ja nu ary 20 08
, aft er Barn es fil ed th is

la wsu it , th e Bo ard rei ns ta te d h im wit ho ut a he ari ng

.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The re are two cl ai m s be fo re us on th is in te rlo cu to ry ap p e al

. Co un t Fo ur of

Barn es ’s co m

pl ai nt al le ge s a 42 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3 c la im ag ai ns t Zacca ri in di vi du al ly.

The cl ai m as se rts th at Zacca ri vi ol at ed Barn es ’s pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s rig ht s un de r

th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t by fai lu re to gi ve hi m , pr io r to hi s rem ov al fro m cam pu s,

du e no ti ce of th e ch arg es ag ai ns t hi m an d a he ari ng to m eet th os e ch arg es

. Thi s

Co un t s eek s d ecl arat or y

an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f an d c om pe ns at or y da m ag es

.

Co un t Fi ve al le ge s a st at e-l aw br each of co nt ract cl ai m ag ai ns t th e Bo ard

. The

cl ai m as se rts th at th e Bo ard ’s po li ci es an d pr ov is io ns in th e VSU st ud en t ha nd bo ok
,

as well as co nt ract s fo r st ud en t h o us in g, es ta bl is h bi nd in g ag reem en ts be twee n th e

Bo ard an d VSU st ud en ts

. And
, th at th e Bo ard br each ed th es e ag reem en ts by fai li ng

to affo rd Barn es th e pr oc ed ur al rig ht s du e hi m

. Thi s co un t se ek s on ly co m pe ns at or y

da m ag es

.

Zacca ri an d th e Bo a r d mo v ed to di sm is s th es e cl ai m s. Zacca ri as se rte d

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y an d th e Bo ard as se rte d Elev en th Am en dm en t im m un it y

. The

11di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th es e m o t i o n s

. Fo ll owi ng di sc ov ery, Zacca ri an d th e Bo ard

m ov ed fo r su m

m ary jud gm e nt , Za ccar i as se rti ng qu al ifi ed im m un it y an d th e Bo ard

as se rti ng Elev en th Am en dm en t im m un i t y. Th e di st ric t co ur t al so de ni ed th es e

m ot io ns . Zaccari an d t he Bo ard ti m el y ap pe al ed

. 6

III. ISS UES ON APPEAL

Zacca ri co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi m qu al ifi ed im m un it y

be cau se : (1 ) he di d no t de pr iv e B a r n e s of a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed pr op ert y

in te res t; (2 ) ev en if he de pr iv ed Barn es of a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ec t e d pr op ert y

in te res t, Barn es rece iv ed al l th e pr oc es s he was du e; an d ( 3 ) e v e n if Barn es di d no t

r e cei ve al l th e pr oc es s he was du e, th e la w was no t cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e t i me.

The Bo ard co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fai li ng to di sm is s Barn es ’s b reac h of

co nt ract cla im

as b arre d b y

th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“ Bec au se qu al ifi ed im

m un it y pr ov id es th e rig ht no t to be bu rd en ed by tri al
, an d

no t si m pl y a de fen se to li ab il it y , th is Co ur t ha s juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w i n t e r l o c u to ry

ap pe al s fro m or de r s d e n y in g su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y .”

Har tl ey v. Par ne ll
, 19 3 F.3 d 12 63
, 12 68 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 99 ) (q uo ti ng Ti nn ey v. Sh or es ,

The dist rict court has not enter ed final judgme nt in this case

. We only have jurisdiction, 6

on this interlocutory ap p ea l
, o v er the di strict court’s denial of qualified immunit y for Za cca ri and denial of Ele venth Amendment immunity for the B oard.

1277 F.3 d 37 8, 38 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 96 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ). Si m il arl y , we

ha ve juri sd ic ti on un de r th e co ll at eral or de r do ct rin e to re vi ew th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r

de nyin g th e Bo ard su m

m ary jud gm en t ba se d on Elev en th Am en d men t im m un it y

.

Su mmit Med

. Ass oc s., P.C. v. Pryo r , 18 0 F.3 d 13 26
, 13 34 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 99 ) (ci ta ti on s

om it te d )

. We rev ie w th es e qu es ti on s of la w de no vo

. Har tl ey , 19 3 F.3 d at 12 68 ;

Su mmit Med . Ass oc s. , 18 0 F .3d at 1 33 4.

V. DISCUSSION

A. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED Z ACCARI ’S MOTION FOR SUMM ARY JUDGMENT BASED ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

“ Qua li fie d im m

un it y of fers co m pl et e pr ot ect io n fo r go ve rn m en t of fic ia ls su ed

in th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es as lo ng as th ei r co nd uc t vi ol at es no cl earl y es ta bl is he d

st at ut or y or co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s of whic h a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve kn own .”

Lee v. Ferr ar o , 28 4 F

. 3 d 1 1 88
, 11 93 –9 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ) (q uo ti ng Th oma s v.

Rob er ts , 26 1 F. 3 d 1 1 6 0
, 11 70 (1 1t h Ci r.20 01 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d) ). To

cl ai m qu al ifi ed im

m un it y , a de fen da nt m

us t fi r s t s ho w he was pe rfo rm in g a

di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on

. Mer ca do v. Ci ty of Orl an do
, 40 7 F.3 d 11 52
, 11 56 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 05 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The bu rd en th en sh ift s to th e pl ai nt iff to sh ow th at : (1 ) th e

de fen da nt vi ol at ed a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht ; an d (2 ) th e rig ht was cl earl y es ta bl is he d at

13th e ti m e of th e vi ol at io n. Id

. at 11 56

. Here, it is un di sp ut ed th at Zacca ri was

pe rfo rm in g a di sc ret io na ry fun ct io n.

1. Ba rnes Ha d a Con st itu tio na l Rig ht to Pro ces s Befo re He w as Rem ov ed fro m VSU.

To de feat qu al ifi ed im

m un it y on a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, Barn es m us t

sh ow th at , whe n th e fact s are vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le t o h i m, Zacca ri

vi ol at ed a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht

. The Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t gu aran te es th at “ [n ]o

St at e sh al l

. . . de pr iv e an y pe rs on of li fe, li be rty, or pr op ert y , wit ho ut du e pr oc es s of

la w.” U.S. Co ns t. am en d. XIV. “ Our in qu iry in to whe th er th ere was a de ni al of du e

pr oc es s in vo lv es a two

- p a r t a n al y si s. W e m us t de te rm in e whe th er [Bar ne s] was

de pr iv ed of a pr ot ect ed pr op ert y in te res t, an d if so , wha t pr oc es s was du e.” W oo dr uf f

v. U.S. Dep ’t o

f La bo r , 95 4 F .2d 63 4, 6 41 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

“ [P]rop ert y in te res ts s u b je ct to pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s pr ot ect io n are no t

li m it e d b y a few rig id
, te ch ni cal fo rm s. Rat he r, pr op ert y de no te s a br oa d ran ge of

in te res ts th at are se cu red by ex is ti ng ru le s or un de rs ta nd in gs .” Perr y v. Si nd er man n ,

40 8 U.S. 59 3, 60 1, 92 S. Ct

. 26 94
, 26 99 (1 97 2) (ci ta ti on om it te d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d)

. An in di vi du al can ha ve a pr ot ect ed pr op ert y in te res t in a go ve rn m en t

be ne fit whe n he ha s “ a le gi ti m at e cl ai m of en ti tl em en t to it .” Bd. of Reg en ts of St at e

Co ll s. v. Rot h
, 40 8 U.S. 5 6 4
, 57 7, 92 S. Ct

. 27 01
, 27 09 (1 97 2)

. The cl ai m of

14en ti tl em en t m us t co m e fro m an in de pe nd en t so ur ce. Id

. (“ Pro pe rty in te res ts

. . . are

no t crea te d by th e Co ns ti tu ti on

. . . [b ut ] by ex is ti ng ru le s or un de rs ta nd in gs th at st em

fro m an in d e p e n d en t so ur ce

. . . .”); Si nd er man n , 40 8 U.S. at 60 2 n.7
, 92 S. Ct

. at

27 00 n.7

. The in de pe nd en t so ur ce can be a st at ut e, se e Gos s v. Lo pe z , 41 9 U.S. 56 5,

57 2– 73
, 95 S. Ct

. 72 9, 73 5 (1 97 5) ; a reg ul at io n, se e Glen n v. New man , 61 4 F.2 d 46 7,

47 1– 72 (5 th Ci r. 19 80 ), ov er ru le d on ot he r gr ou nd s , Mon ro e Cn ty
., Fla

. v. U.S. Dep ’t

of La bo r , 69 0 F.2 d 13 59 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 82 ); an ex pr es s or im pl ie d co nt ract , se e

Si nd er man n , 40 8 U.S. at 60 1– 02
, 9 2 S

. C t. at 26 99 –2 70 0; or a m ut ua ll y ex pl ic it

un de rs ta nd in g. Id . at 6 02 –0 3, 9 2 S . Ct. at 27 00

.

“ The ha ll m ark of pr op ert y

. . . i s an in di vi du al en ti tl em en t gr ou nd ed in st at e

la w, whi ch can no t be rem ov ed ex cep t ‘for cau se .’ ” Lo ga n v. Zi mmerma n Bru sh Co

. ,

45 5 U.S. 42 2, 43 0, 10 2 S. Ct

. 11 48
, 11 55 (1 98 2) ; se e Bar ry v. Bar ch i , 44 3 U.S. 55
,

65
, 99 S. Ct

. 26 42
, 26 49 (1 97 9) ; Memp hi s Li gh t, Gas & W

at er Div. v. Cr af

t , 43 6 U.S.

1, 9 , 98 S. Ct. 1 55 4, 1 56 0 (1 97 8) ; Glen n , 61 4 F .2d at 4 71 . The i nd ep en de nt so ur ce

ne ed no t us e th e ph ras e “ fo r cau se ” so lo ng as th e pa rti es un de rs to od th ei r ag reem en t

wou ld ha ve th at effe ct

. Se e Pete rs on v. Atl an ta Hou s. Aut h.
, 99 8 F.2 d 90 4, 91 4 (1 1t h

Ci r. 19 93 ).

Onc e a st at e crea te s a su bs ta nt iv e in te r e s t i n a go ve rn m en t be ne fit
, “ fed eral

co ns ti tu ti on al la w de te rm in es whe th er th at in te res t ris es to th e le ve l of a le gi ti m at e

15cl ai m

of e nt it le m en t p ro te ct ed by the Due P ro ces s C la us e.” Memp hi s Li gh t, Ga s &

W at er D i v

. , 43 6 U.S. at 9, 98 S. Ct

. at 15 60 (ci ta ti on om it te d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it t e d ) ; Br ow n v. Ga. Dep ’t of Reven ue , 88 1 F.2 d 10 18
, 10 27 (1 1t h Ci r.

19 89 ).

Zacca ri co nt en ds th at Barn es ha d no le gi ti m at e cl ai m of en ti tl em en t to rem ai n

en ro ll ed at VSU. Bu t Barn es ’s en ti tl em en t is es ta bl is he d by bo th th e Bo ard ’s Po li cy

Man ua l an d th e VSU St ud en t Co de of Co nd uc t (th e “ Co de ”). Bo th th es e do cu m en ts

co ns ti tu te of

fic ia l reg ul at io ns of th e St at e of Geo rg ia

. The Geo rg ia Co ns ti tu ti on

sp eci fic al ly v es t s c o n t r o l of th e Uni ve rs it y Sy st em of Geo rg ia wit h th e Bo ard

. Ga.

Co ns t. art

. VIII, § 4, pa ra. I. Und e r t h i s a ut ho rit y , th e Bo ard pr om ul ga te d a Po li cy

Man ua l. The m an ua l i nc lu de s Po li cy 40 1.0 1, wh ic h p ro vi de s:

Adm is si on , di sc ip li ne , pr om ot io n, gr ad ua ti on an d fo rm ul at io n of al l r u l es an d reg ul at io ns pe rta in in g to st ud en t in st it ut io ns of th e U ni ve rs it y Sy st em are m at te rs to be ha nd le d by th e in st it ut io ns wit h i n th e fram ewo rk of reg ul at io ns of th e Bo ard of Reg en ts

. St u de nt s vi ol at in g ru le s an d reg ul at io ns of an in st it ut io n m ay be pu ni sh ed
, su sp en de d, ex cl ud ed
, or ex pe l l e d as m ay be de te rm in ed by th e in st it ut io n.
(Dk t. 17 9- 8 at 42 .) Thi s p r o v i s i o n ve st s in st it ut io ns (li ke VSU) wit h au th or it y to

m ak e ru le s go ve rn in g st ud en t di sc ip li ne wit hi n “ th e fram ewo rk of reg ul at io ns of th e

Bo ard of Reg en ts .” (

Id

. ) The ne xt se nt en ce au th or iz es in st it ut i o n s t o “ pu ni sh [],

su sp en d[ ], ex cl ud e[], or ex pe l[]” th os e st ud en ts who are “ vi ol at in g ru le s an d

16reg ul at io ns of [th e] in st it ut io n.” ( Id .) Po li cy 40 1.0 1 do es no t aut ho riz e in st it ut io ns

to pu ni sh al l st ud en ts —o nl y a cert ai n cl as s of st ud en t s , t ho se vi ol at in g th e ru le s or

reg ul at io ns of the in st it ut io n. By im pl ic at io n, th en , Po li cy 40 1.0 1 wit hh ol ds au th or it y

to di sc ip li ne st ud en ts who fol lo w th e ru le s an d re gu la ti on s.

Und er Po li cy

40 1.0 1, VSU p ro m

ul ga te d t he Co de . Th e Co de si m il arl y li m it s

VSU’s au th or it y to di sc ip li ne st ud en ts to th os e st ud en ts who h av e co m m it te d a

vi ol at io n of th e Co de

. In th e se ct io n ti tl ed “ Dis ci pl in ary San ct io ns ,” th e Co de li st s

sa nc ti on s, in cl ud in g su sp en si on an d ex pu ls io n, t h a t “m ay be im po se d up on a

st ud en t

. . . fo r a f

i n d in g of re sp on si bi li ty fo r vi ol at io ns of th e St ud en t Co de of

Co n d u c t

. ” (Dk t. 17 9- 1 at 10 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Thi s pr ov is io n pr om is es VSU 7

st ud en ts th ey wil l no t face di sc ip li na ry sa nc ti on s un ti l th ey are fo un d res po ns ib le fo r

vi ol at in g t he Co de

.

Thu s, th e Po li cy Man ua l an d th e Co de pe rm it VSU t o i mp o s e di sc ip li na ry

sa nc ti on s on ly “ fo r cau se .” The cau se at is su e he re is a vi ol at io n of th e Co de

. Unt il

8

The recor d is clea

r t hat Barne s was making satisfactory aca demic progr ess when he was 7 withdrawn f

rom ca mpus.

Z acc ari contends that Ba

rnes’ s administrative withdrawa l was not a disciplinary sanction. 8 We disag ree

. The structure and plain lang uag e of t h e C o d e compel this conclusion. The Code is divided into sever al sections including Appendix A (deta iling the rules students must comply with) and Appendix B (setting out enfor ceme nt proce dures)

. Appendix A is furt h er s ubdivided into Aca demi c an d Non-Ac ademic rules. The Acade mic section describes the proce dures followed in punishing a violat i o n of that section. Howeve r, the Non-Ac ademic section does not set out any proce dures for punishing violations of that section. I nstead, the proce dures to punish violations of

17a st ud en t vi ol at es i t , th at st ud en t ha s a le gi ti m at e cl ai m of en ti tl em en t to co nt in ue d

en ro ll m en t at VSU un de r Geo rg ia la w. Und er Lo ga n v. Zi mmerma n Bru sh Co

. , th is 9

cl ai m of e nt it le m en t g iv es Barn es a pr op ert y in te res t i n h is en ro ll m en t at VSU.

Hav in g es ta bl is he d Barn es ’s en ti t le m en t un de r Geo rg ia la w, we ne xt as k

whe th er hi s en ti tl em en t is su ffi ci en tl y im po rta nt to warra nt pr ot ect io n un de r th e Due

Pro ces s Cl au se

. It cl earl y is

. Se e Dixo n v. Ala

. St at e Bd. of Edu c. , 29 4 F.2 d 15 0, 15 7

(5 th Ci r. 19 61 ). In de ed
, no te ne t of co ns ti tu ti on al la w is m or e cl earl y es ta bl is he d th an

th e ru le th at a pr op ert y in te res t in co nt in ue d en ro ll m en t in a st at e s c h o ol is an

im po rta nt en ti tl em en t pr ot ect ed by th e Due Pro ces s C l au se of th e Fo ur te en th

the Non-A cade mic Code of Conduct ar e set for th in Appendix B. T h e a u th o r it y Z a c c a r i c it e d f o r Ba rnes’ s administrative withdrawa l—Poli cy 1902—is lo c a te d in the Non-Ac ademic section. This location indicates that Policy 1902 will be enfor ced in the same

manner as all other disciplinary rules—the proce dures set forth in Appendix B. Additionally
, Policy 1902 specific ally states that students who violate i t “shall be subject to disciplinary proce dures.” (Dkt. 17 9 -7 at 4 9

. ) Ag ain, t he only non-ac ademic disciplinary proce dures set out in the C ode are located in Appendix B. Finally
, the section in Appendix B titled “Disciplinary Sanctions” provides the following definitions:

A. Ex pulsio n : p e r

ma n ent sever ance of the student’s/org anization’s rela tionship with the Univer sity

. B. Disciplinary Suspension: a temporar y sever ance of the student’s/org aniza t ion’s rela tionship wit h the Univer sity for a specific period of time.

(Dkt 179-7 at 10.) We see no substantive dis t i n ct i o n betwee n the “administrative withdrawa l” imposed by Z acc ari and the Code’s defin i t i o n s of “expulsion” and “disciplinary suspension.” Z acc ari’s c rea tive labeling cannot a void the plain lang uag e of the Code.

We do not hold that all students at state colleg es and universities are entitled to continued 9 enrollment. We hold only that one making satisfac tory aca demic prog ress and obey ing the rules of the school has a leg itimate claim of entitlement to continued enrollment under the Boa rd and VSU’s policies.

18Am en dm en t. Se e, e.g

. , Gos s v. Lo pe z , 41 9 U.S. 56 5, 57 4, 57 6 n.8
, 95 S. Ct

. 72 9, 73 6,

73 7 n.8 (1 97 5) (n ot in g th at si nc e 19 61
, “ th e lo wer fed eral co ur ts ha ve un ifo rm ly he ld

th e Due Pro ces s Cl a u s e a p pl ic ab le to de ci si on s m ad e by t ax -s up po rte d ed uc at io na l

in st it ut io ns to rem ov e a s tu de nt fro m th e in st it ut io n l on g e no ug h fo r th e rem ov al to

b e cl as si fie d as an ex pu ls io n.” ); Dixo n , 29 4 F.2 d at 15 7. Thu s, we no w tu rn to th e

se co nd qu es ti on : What pro ces s i s d ue ?

Fi fty y ears ag o in Dixo n v. Ala ba ma St at e Boa rd of Edu ca ti on , th e co ur t sa id
,

“ [D]ue pr oc es s req ui res no ti ce an d so m e op po rtu ni ty fo r he ari ng be fo re a st ud en t at

a ta x- su pp or te d co ll eg e is ex pe ll ed fo r m is co nd uc t.” 29 4 F.2 d at 15 7. Si m il arl y , th e 1 0

Su pr e me C o u r t h el d in Gos s v. Lo pe z th at , wi th a su sp en si on of te n da y s, a st ud en t

sh ou ld rece iv e no ti ce an d a he ar i ng be fo re th e su sp en si on

. 41 9 U.S. a t 58 1– 82 , 9 5

S. Ct

. at 74 0 (“ [D]ue pr oc es s req ui res , in co nn ect io n wit h a su sp en si on of 10 da y s or

le ss , th at th e st ud en t b e g iv en ora l o r writ te n no ti ce of th e ch arg es ag ai ns t hi m an d,

if he de ni es th em , an e x p l a n a t i o n of th e ev id en ce th e au th or it ie s ha ve an d an

op po rtu ni ty to pr es en t hi s si de of th e st or y. The Cl au se req ui res at le as t th es e

ru di m en ta ry pr ecau ti on s ag ai ns t u nf ai r or m is ta ke n fin di ng s of m is co nd uc t an d

arb it rary excl us io n fr om

sch oo l.”)

Dixon is binding prec edent in this circ uit under Bonner v. City of Prichard
, 661 F.2d 1206 1 0 (11th Cir. 1981).

19VSU is a st at e un iv ers it y , an d Barn es was rem ov ed fo r m is co nd uc t— vi ol at in g

Po li cy 19 02

. It is un di sp ut ed th at Barn es was rem ov ed fo r lo ng er th an te n da y s, an d

th at he re c ei ve d no pr ed ep riv at io n pr oc es s. W e ne ed no t de ci de th e de ta il s of th e 1 1

pr oc es s d ue Barn es

. It is en ou gh to sa y th at Dixo n an d Gos s est ab li sh th at he was 1 2

du e n ot ic e o f th e ch arg es an d a he ari ng pri or to hi s re m ov al

. 1 3

Zacca ri co nt en ds he face d an em erg en cy whi ch req ui red im m ed ia te act io n. In

Gos s , th e Co ur t reco gn iz ed th at sc hool of fic ia ls can an d do face em erg en cy si tu at io ns

.

Gos s , 41 9 U.S. at 58 2– 83
, 95 S. Ct

. at 74 0. In an act ua l or reas on ab l y p e r c e i v e d

em erg en cy , pr ed ep riv at io n pr oc es s “ can no t be in si st ed up on .” Id

. at 58 2. In st ead
, th e

pr oc es s du e a st ud en t in an em erg en cy wou ld de pe nd on a ba la nc in g of th e di ffer en t

in te res ts in vo lv ed

. Se e Mat he ws v

. Eld ri dg e , 4 24 U.S. 3 19 , 3 34 –3 5, 96 S. Ct . 8 93
,

90 2– 03 (1 97 6)

. Bu t we ne ed no t de te rm in e th e pr oc es s du e in an em erg en cy be cau se ,

whe n we vi ew th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Barn es , no em erg en cy ex is te d.

The district court found that Ba rnes fi rs t lear

ned of the char g es ag ainst him on May 7, 1 1 2007, when he rec eived Z acc ari’s le tter withdraw ing him fr om campus.

The Goss court did not dictate the form that the notice and hear ing should ta ke. I nstead, 1 2 it recog nized that the notice could be inf ormal and tha t the hear ing c ould occur only minutes after the student’s misconduct. Goss
, 419 U.S. at 582, 95 S. Ct. at 740. Following Goss
, students ha ve fre quently challeng ed the adequa cy of the notice and hear ing. See Nash v. Auburn Univ.
, 812 F.2d 655 (11th Cir. 1987). As this court noted in Nash
, the adequa cy of the notice and hear ing will depend upon the competing interests involved. Id. at 660 (c itation omit ted).

Be cause we conclude
, for purposes of this appea l, that B a r n es was due some prede privation 1 3
proce ss, we re

ject Z acc ari’s a

rg uments about ava ilable postdeprivation re medies.

20Zacca ri sa y s th at Barn es en ga ge d in th reat en in g be ha vi or

. Bu t Barn es ’s

Face b o o k co ll ag e, em ai ls
, an d le tt er— whe n vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to

hi m —re ve al a s t ud en t who is pa ss io na te ab ou t en vi ro nm en ta l is su es , bu t do no t

req ui re an infe ren ce tha t Barn es in te nd ed to ha rm so m eo ne

. Zacca ri cla im s th at hi s

na m e co nn ect ed to th e wor d “ m em or ia l” in Barn es ’s Face bo ok co ll ag e su gg es ts th at

Zacca ri wou ld so on be de ad

. Bu t reas on ab le m in ds co ul d di ffer

. Sev eral un iv ers it y

of fic ia ls co ntem

por an eous ly vi ewed th e co ll ag e an d co nc lu de d it was no t th reat en in g.

And th e Dire ct or of th e VSU Co un se li ng Cen te r, Dr. Vict or Mo rg an , to ld Zacca ri th at

th e co ll ag e was no t a t hr eat

.

Zacca ri cl ai m s he rece iv ed pr an k cal ls at hi s ho m e an d th at so m eo ne tri pp ed

th e al arm syste m at hi s ho us e. Bu t Barn es de ni es m ak in g th es e cal ls an d de ni es th at

he tri pp ed Zaccar i’s al arm . Zaccari po in ts ou t t ha t h e em pl oyed a se cu rit y de ta il to

gu ard hi m at un iv ers it y fu nc ti on s an d em ph as iz es th at ot he rs pe rcei ve d hi m as vi si bl y

sh ak en

. Oth er ev id en ce su gg es ts th at Zacca ri was no t act ua ll y afra id of Barn es

. Fo r

ex am pl e, Po l i c e M a

jo r Ann Farm er su gg es te d th at Zacca ri ge t a res tra in in g or de r

ag ai ns t Barn es , bu t he de cl in ed

. And aft er de ci di ng to “ ad m in is tra ti ve ly wit hd raw”

Barn es , Zaccar i wai te d fo ur da y s t o e xe cu te hi s d eci si on

.

Oth er ev id en ce su gg es ts th at an y fear was un reas on ab le

. Farm er in ve st ig at ed

Barn es , bu t to ok no act io n ag ai ns t hi m

. Barn es ’s un iv ers it y co un se lo r, McM il la n; hi s

21ps y ch ia tri st , Dr. W in de rs ; an d Dr. Mo rg an al l be li ev ed th at Barn es po se d no da ng er

to hi m se lf or ot he rs

. Oth er un iv ers it y of fic ia ls al so co nc lu de d th at Barn es was no t a

th reat an d t ha t Zac cari was o ve r rea ct in g.

Zacca ri e m

ph as iz es th at Barn es ’s co nd uc t cam e sh or tl y aft er the sh oo ti ng s at

Virg in ia Tech

. Oth er un iv ers it y of fic ia ls ex pe rie nc ed th e sa m e sh oc k an d co nc ern

ge ne rat ed by th e tra ge dy at Virg in ia Tech
, bu t co nc lu de d th at Barn es was no t a th reat

.

W e ho ld th at a jury co ul d co nc lu de th at an ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le pe rs on in

Zacca ri’s po si ti on wou ld no t ha ve fo un d Barn es pr es en te d a th reat to sa fet y of VSU’s

cam pu s su ffi ci en t to warra nt an “ em erg en cy ” su sp en si on or ex pu ls io n. W e tu rn no w

to t h e s e c o n d pa rt of th e qu al ifi ed im m un it y an al y si s: W as Barn es ’s rig ht to th is

pr ed ep riv at io n p ro ces s cl earl y est ab li sh ed at t he rel ev an t t im e?

2. Ba rnes ’s Cons tit uti on al Rig ht Wa s Cl ea rl y E st ab li sh ed i n Ma y 2 00 7

“ The rel ev an t, di sp os it iv e in qu iry in d et erm in in g whe th er a rig ht is cl ea rl y

es ta bl is he d is whe th er it wou ld be cl ea r to a reas on ab le [u ni ve rs it y pr es id en t] th at hi s

co nd uc t was un la wfu l i n t he si tu at io n h e co nf ro nt ed .” Vin

ya rd v. W il so n , 3 11 F.3d

13 40
, 13 50 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ) (q uo ti ng Sa uc ie r v. Ka tz , 53 3 U.S. 19 4, 20 2, 12 1 S. Ct

.

2 1 5 1
, 2 1 5 6 (2 00 1) ). To an swe r th is qu es ti on , we lo ok to la w as de ci de d by th e

Su pr em e Co ur t, th e Elev en th Ci rcu it
, or th e Su pr e me C ou rt of Geo rg ia

. Se e

W il li ng ha m v. Lou gh na n , 32 1 F .3d 12 99 , 13 04 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ).

22Zacca ri co nt en ds t h a t B a r ne s’s pr op ert y in te res t in hi s co nt in ue d en ro ll m en t

was no t cl earl y es ta bl is he d whe n he was “ ad m in is tra ti ve ly wit hd rawn ” in May 20 07

.

Bu t, at th at ti m e, Bo ard Po li cy 40 1.0 1 and th e Co de cl earl y es ta bl is he d th at Zacca ri

co ul d no t su sp en d or ex pe l Barn es wit ho ut cau se —i .e., Barn es vi ol at in g a pr ov is io n

in th e Co de

. And th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on s in Bo a r d o f Re ge nt s of St at e

Co ll eg es v. Rot h
, 40 8 U.S. at 57 7, 92 S. Ct

. at 27 09 ; Perr y v. Si nd er man n , 40 8 U.S.

at 60 1, 92 S. Ct

. at 26 99 ; an d Lo ga n v. Zi mmerma n Bru sh Co

. , 45 5 U.S. at 43 0, 10 2

S. Ct

. at 11 55
, cl earl y es ta bl is he d th at whe n a go ve rn m en t be ne fit “ can n o t be

rem ov ed ex cep t ‘for cau se ,’ ” an in di vi du al ha s a pr op ert y i n t e r e s t in th at be ne fit

pr ot ect ed un de r th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se

. Zi mmerma n Bru sh Co

. , 45 5 U.S. at 43 0,

10 2 S . Ct. at 11 55 . Sim il arl y , in W in kl er v. DeKa lb Co un ty , we sai d:

[A]l th ou gh th e pr im ary so ur ce of pr op ert y rig ht s is st at e la w, th e st at e

m ay no t m ag ic al ly de cl are an in te res t to be “ no n pr op ert y ” aft er th e fact fo r Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t p u rp os es if, fo r ex am pl e, a lo ng st an di ng pa t t e r n o f pr act ic e ha s es ta bl is he d an in di vi du al ’s en ti tl em en t to a pa rti cu la r go ve rn m en ta l b en efi t.

64 8 F.2 d 41 1, 41 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 81 ) (q uo ti ng Qui nn v. Sy ra cu se Mod el Nei gh bo rh oo d

Co rp

. , 61 3 F.2 d 43 8, 44 8 (2 d Ci r. 19 80 )). The Co de rep eat ed ly as su res VSU st ud en ts

th at th ey wil l rece iv e du e pr oc es s be fo re be in g su sp en de d or ex pe ll ed

. Hav in g m ad e 1 4

For example, in the section titled “Disciplinary Process,” the Co d e provides that 1 4 “disciplinary sanctions shall be applied only afte r the require ments of due proce ss

. . . h av e b een met. ” (Dkt. 179-7 at 8.) The section on “Disciplinary Sanctions” lists sanctions which “may be

23su ch as su ran ces , Zacca ri can no t rev ers e co ur se an d “ m ag ic al ly de cl are” Barn es ’s

en ti tl em en t to hi s co nt in ue d en ro ll m en t is no t a pr ot ect ed pr op ert y in te res t un de r th e

Due Pro ces s C la us e. 64 8 F .2d at 4 14

.

The pr oc es s du e Barn es was al so cl earl y es ta bl is he d. In Dixo n , th e co ur t he ld :

“ [D]ue pr oc es s req ui res no ti ce an d so m e op po rtu ni ty fo r he ari ng be fo re a st ud en t at

a ta x- su pp or te d co ll eg e is ex pe ll ed fo r m is co nd uc t.” 29 4 F.2 d at 15 8. Barn es was a

st ud en t at VSU, a st at e un iv ers it y , an d he was ex pe ll ed fo r m is co nd uc t— vi o l a t i ng

Po li cy 19 02 . He recei ve d n o n ot ic e o r he ari ng be fo re h e was ex pe ll ed

.

The Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on in Gos s fu rth er rei nf or ces ou r co nc lu si on

. 41 9

U.S. at 5 81 , 95 S. Ct. at 74 0. In th at cas e, th e Co ur t h el d t ha t a st ud en t fa ci ng a te n

da y su sp en si on is en ti tl ed to so m e ki nd of pr oc es s— al be it in fo rm al an d

su m m ary—bef

or e th e su sp en si on is im

po se d. Thu s, ev en if Zacca ri co ul d sh ow th at

Barn es ’s “ ad m in is tra ti ve wit hd rawal ” was a su sp en si on rat he r th an an ex pu ls io n,

Barn es ’s rig ht to pre de pr iv at io n p ro ces s wo ul d b e n o l es s cl ear. 1 5

imposed

. . . for a finding of r es p o n s i b i l i t y for violations of the [C ode].” ( Id. at 10.) (empha sis added)

. The only body able to make a “finding of responsibility ” under the Code is a student judicial committee. At judicial committee hear ings, students are g uara nteed “a l l ri gh t s require d by due
proce ss.” (

Id. at 7.)

As we noted ear lier, Z acc ari contends that he fac ed an emer g ency situation which require d 1 5 immediate action. But a jury could conclude that Z acc ari did not fac e an emer g ency

. There fore
, we express no opinion on whether the pr ocess due in an emer g ency was c lear ly

established.

24The refo re, th e de ci si on s of this co ur t an d th e Su pr em e Co ur t cl earl y es ta bl is he d

in May 20 07 th at (1 ) Barn es ha d a pr ot ect ed pr op ert y in te res t an d th at (2 ) he was du e

so m e pr ed ep riv at io n pr oc es s be fo re VSU co ul d de pr iv e hi m of th at in te res t. Bec au se

Barn es rece iv ed no pr ed ep riv at io n pr oc es s, we affi rm th e d i s tri ct co ur t’s de ni al of

Zacca ri’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t g ro un de d o n q ua li fie d i m m un it y

.

Howev er, Zacca ri’s qu al ifi ed im m un it y de fen se do es no t dr op ou t of th e cas e.

Se e Co tt re ll v. Ca ld

wel l , 8 5 F

. 3 d 1 4 8 0
, 1 4 8 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 96 ). At tri al , t he di st ric t

co ur t can us e a sp eci al ve rd ic t or w r it te n in te rro ga to rie s to de te rm in e an y di sp ut ed

fact s an d th e reas on ab le in fere nc es dr awn fro m th os e fact s. Id

. Onc e th es e is su es are

de ci de d, Zacca ri m ay reas se rt hi s qu al ifi ed im m un it y de fen se in a m ot io n fo r
jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law. Id

.

B. THE DISTRIC T COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DISMI SS BARNES’S BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM AGAINST THE BOARD AS BARRED BY THE EL EVENTH AMENDMENT.

The Elev en th Am en dm en t p ro vi de s:

The Ju di ci al po wer of th e Uni te d St at es sh al l no t be co ns tru ed to

ex te nd t o a n y su it in la w or eq ui ty, co m m en ced or pr os ecu te d ag ai ns t

on e of th e Uni te d St at es by Ci ti zen s of a n o t h e r S t at e or by Ci ti zen s or Su bjec ts of a ny Forei gn Sta te

.

U.S. C O N S T

. am en d XI. The pa rti es ag ree th e Bo ard is an “ arm of th e st at e” us ua ll y

en ti tl ed to Elev en th Am en dm en t im m un it y

. (Dk t. 1 at 29 ); se e Rob in so n v. Ga. Dep ’t

25of Tr an sp

. , 96 6 F.2 d 63 7, 63 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 92 ). Bu t Barn es co nt en ds
, an d th e di st ric t

co ur t ru le d, th at Geo rg ia ha s waiv ed it s Elev en th Am en dm en t im m un it y fro m su it in

fed eral co ur t fo r br each of c on tra ct cla im s. We di sa gr ee.

The te st to de te rm in e if a st at e ha s waiv ed i t s so ve rei gn im m un it y “ is a

st rin ge nt on e.” Co ll . S

av . Ba nk v. Fla . Pr ep ai d Pos ts eco n d a r y Ed u c. Exp en se Bd.
,

52 7 U.S. 66 6, 67 5, 11 9 S. Ct

. 22 19
, 22 26 (1 99 9) (q uo ti ng Ata sc ad er o St at e Hos p. v.

Sc an lo n , 47 3 U.S. 23 4, 24 1, 10 5 S. Ct

. 31 42
, 31 46 (1 98 5) ); Ede lma n v. Jo rd an , 41 5

U.S

. 65 1, 67 3, 94 S. Ct

. 13 47
, 13 61 (1 97 4)

. A waiv er of Elev en th Am en dm en t

im m un it y m us t sp eci fic al ly perm it su it s in fed eral co ur t

. Por t Aut h. Tr an s- Hud so n

Co rp . v . Fe en ey , 49 5 U.S. 2 99 , 3 06 , 1 10 S. Ct

. 18 68 , 1 87 3 (1 99 0) (“ [I]n or de r fo r

a st at e st at ut e or co ns ti tu ti on al pr ov is io n to co ns ti tu te a waiv er of El e v e n t h

Am en dm en t im m

un it y , it m

us t sp eci fy th e St at e’s in te nt io n to su bjec t it se lf to su it in

fed eral co ur t.”) (q uo ti ng Ata sc ad er o S t a t e Hos p. , 47 3 U.S. at 24 1, 10 5 S. Ct

. at

31 46 –4 7) ; Rob in so n , 96 6 F.2 d at 64 0. Mo reo ve r, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s sa id th at “ a

S t a t e d o e s no t co ns en t to su it in fed eral co ur t m erel y by co ns en ti ng to su it in th e

co ur ts o f it s own crea ti on .” Co ll

. Sa v. Ban k
, 52 7 U.S. at 67 6, 11 9 S. Ct

. at 22 26

(ci ti ng Smi th v. Reeves , 17 8 U.S. 4 36 , 44 1– 45 , 20 S. Ct. 9 19 , 92 1– 23 (19 00 )).

The Geo rg ia co ns ti tu ti on waiv es th e st at e’s so ve rei gn im m un it y fo r act io ns ex

co nt ra ct u

. G a

. C o n s t. art

. 1, § 2, pa ra. IX(c). Si m il arl y , th e Geo rg ia Co de al so

26waiv es th e st at e’s so ve rei gn im m un it y fo r br each of co nt ract cl ai m s. Ga. Co de Ann

. § 50 -2 1- 1( a). Bu t ne it he r p ro vi si on ex pr es sl y co ns en ts to su it s in fed eral co ur t.

Abs en t t h i s ex pr es s co ns en t, Geo rg ia ha s no t waiv ed it s Elev en th Am en dm en t

im m un it y fro m su it in fed eral co ur t fo r br each of c on tra ct cla im s.

In fact
, Geo rg ia ex pr es sl y ret a i n e d it s Elev en th Am en dm en t im m un it y fro m

su ch cl ai m s. Fo ll owi ng th e waiv er of so ve rei gn im m un it y in th e Geo rg ia

co ns ti tu ti on , a se pa rat e su bs ect io n pr ov id es th at : “ No waiv er of so ve rei gn im m un it y

un de r th is Para gr ap h sh al l be co ns tru ed as a waiv er of an y im m un it y pr ov id ed to th e

st at e or it s de pa rtments , a g e n c i e s , of fic ers , or em

pl oyees by th e Uni te d St at es

Co ns ti tu ti on .” Ga. Co ns t. art

. 1, § 2, pa ra. IX(f). Elev en th Am en dm en t im m un it y is

an im m un it y pr ov id ed by th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on

. Add it io na ll y , th e waiv er in

th e Geo rg ia Co de st at es th at “ ve nu e wit h res pe ct to an y [b reac h of co nt ract ] act io n

sh al l be pr op er in th e Su pe rio r Co ur t of Fu lt on Co un ty, Geo rg ia .” Ga. Co de Ann

. §

50 -2 1- 1( b)

. Und er Smi th v. Reeve s , 17 8 U.S. 43 6, 44 1

– 4 5
, 20 S. Ct

. 91 9, 92 1– 23

( 1 9 0 0 )
, a s t at e can co ns en t to su it in it s own co ur ts wit ho ut co ns en ti ng to su it in

fed eral co ur t. An d t ha t i s ex act ly w ha t Geo rg ia di d wh en it en act ed § 5 0- 21 -1

.

I n t h is cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t reas on ed th at th e Bo ard waiv ed it s El e v e n t h

Am en dm en t i m

m un it y be cau se it fai le d to co nt es t ven ue in it s Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12 (b )

m ot io n to di sm is s. Thi s w a s e r r o r

. “Ge ne ral ly, we wil l fin d a waiv er ei th er if th e

27St at e vo lu nt ari ly in vo ke s ou r juri sd ic ti on , or e ls e if th e St at e m ak es a ‘clear

de cl arat io n’ th at it in te nd s to su bm it it se lf to ou r juri sd ic ti on .” Fla

. Prep ai d
, 52 7 U.S.

a t 67 5– 76
, 11 9 S. Ct

. at 22 26 (1 99 9) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Here, th e Bo ard di d n o t

in vo ke fed eral co ur t juri sd ic ti on

. And th e Bo ard rai se d th e Elev en th Am en dm en t as

a d efen se at t he ou ts et of t hi s ca se in it s R ul e 1 2( b) m ot io n.

Bec au se Geo rg ia ha s no t waiv ed it s Elev en th Am en dm en t im m un it y , we ho ld

th at th e di st ric t co ur t la ck ed juri sd ic ti on to de ci de Barn es ’s br each of co nt ract cl ai m

ag ai ns t th e Bo ard

. Se e May na rd v. Bd. of Regen ts of Div. o f Un iv s. o f Fla. Dep’t of

Edu c. ex re l. Uni v. of S. Fla

. , 34 2 F.3 d 12 81
, 12 87 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ). The di st ric t

co ur t er red in gra nt in g B arn es ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.

VI. CONCLUSION

Bec au se Barn e s h a d a cl earl y es ta bl is he d co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to no ti ce an d a

he ari ng be fo re b e i n g r e mov ed fro m VSU, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of

Zacca ri’s m ot io n fo r s u mm a r y jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y , an d rem an d

fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

Bec au se Geo rg ia ha s no t waiv ed it s Elev en th Am en dm en t im m un it y fo r br each

of co nt ract act io ns , we rev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th e Bo ard ’s m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t o n Barn es ’s br each of co nt ract cl ai m , an d rem an d wit h

in st ru ct io ns to di sm is s t he cla im ag ai ns t t he Bo ard for want of ju ris di ct io n.

28AFFIR MED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND R EM ANDED W ITH

INSTRUCTIONS.

29