Opinion ID: 778225
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Have the right to explain his/her actions or his/her side of the allegations.

Text: 14 3. Have his/her parents(s) or guardian notified if under eighteen and/or living at home; and 15 4. Have a right to a hearing before the district administration and/or Board, with the student's parent(s), legal counsel, or guardian present if desired. 16 The defendants maintain in response that nothing in the language of either Section 120.13(1)(B)(3) or Policy 441 mandates pre-suspension parental notification or a pre-suspension hearing. We need not resolve this interpretative dispute, however, because the failure to conform with the procedural requirements guaranteed by state law does not by itself constitute a violation of federal due process. Pro-Eco, Inc. v. Board of Comm'rs of Jay County, Ind., 57 F.3d 505, 514 (7th Cir.1995) (a violation of a state procedural statute does not offend the Constitution); Wallace v. Tilley, 41 F.3d 296, 301 (7th Cir.1994) (The denial of state procedures in and of itself does not create inadequate process under the federal constitution.); Osteen v. Henley, 13 F.3d 221, 225 (7th Cir.1993) ([A] violation of state law ... is not a denial of due process, even if the state law confers a procedural right.). Therefore, even if Section 120.13(1)(B)(3) or Policy 441 required more, Timijane cannot state a procedural due process claim based on the alleged failure to conform to state law. And as set forth above, the Supreme Court has held that in the context of a short-term suspension, only minimal due process is required under the U.S. Constitution, and the undisputed evidence established that the school provided that requisite process. 17 The Martins also point to the Student Handbook which provides: Parents will be notified of disciplinary action resulting in an out-of-school suspension and will be expected to pick up their child from school following the notification. While the Martins contend that this provision required the school to detain Timijane after school hours, we believe a more logical reading of this provision, however, is the reading Marinack gave it, namely that parents are expected to pick their child up if the suspension occurs during the school day. In any event, as just noted, the failure to comply with state procedural rules cannot form the basis for a federal constitutional claim. See supra at 706. Therefore, we conclude that the Student Handbook cannot form the basis for a procedural due process claim. 18 In sum, while the U.S. Constitution requires a school which suspends a student to provide that student with due process, the process required is minimal. Goss, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725. The undisputed facts in this case demonstrate that the defendants complied with the constitutional mandates by notifying Timijane of the basis for the disciplinary action and an opportunity to provide her side of the story. The Constitution does not require pre-suspension parental notification or a pre-suspension hearing. Moreover, even if state law required more than the Constitution, that cannot form the basis of a federal due process claim. 5