Opinion ID: 616657
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Plaintiffs' Opening and Reply Briefs on Appeal.

Text: Even if, as a matter of notice pleading, the plaintiffs had adequately described, in the district court, the procedural process claim that the panel has manufactured, their more serious deficiency, for purposes of waiver, is that their opening brief makes no mention of it. In the Statement of Issues Presented for Appeal, plaintiffs list Whether upon expulsion, Morgan Swindle had a vested property interest in Alternative Education, and if so, may such right be taken away in the absence of due process. But the five sub-items listed below that statement all involve the issuance of a waiver to the school board and in no way touch on any due process right to notice and hearing. In the Summary of Argument, plaintiffs claim property rights and state only that defendants denied these rights in the absence of due process. In their Argument section, under Procedural Due Process, subheading Entitlement to Alternative Education, the plaintiffs contend, at length, that the school's use of a waiver violated Morgan's property right to Alternative Education. There is no mention of notice and hearing. The only alleged procedural violation is the use of the waiver by the school board in an effort to avoid having to provide alternative education. [11] The reply brief does not mention due process. It deals, instead, with a separate res judicata issue. In summary, the plaintiffs have fallen far short of what we and the federal appellate rules require an appellant to do to raise an issue adequately for review on appeal. Especially in counseled cases, we do not allow an appellant merely to state, in the brief, general terms such as due process or constitutional violation without supporting explanation and argument. In regard to procedural due process, these plaintiffs have never told us or the district court what it is that a school official failed to do. Only the judges on this panel have made that claim on behalf of the plaintiffs: the alleged failure to provide a hearing on the denial of alternative education.