Opinion ID: 3066080
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 90-day expulsion

Text: Although the Constitution does not require that a school give a student “the opportunity to secure counsel, to confront and cross-examine witnesses supporting the charge, [and] to call his own witnesses to verify his version of the incident” before a short suspension, suspensions longer than 10 days or “expulsions for the remainder of the school term, or permanently, may require more formal process.” Goss, 419 U.S. at 583–84. Neither the Supreme Court nor our own circuit has mandated specific procedures for a suspension of 90 days. “Due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 (1976) (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972)) (alteration omitted). In determining whether Landon received adequate due process, we consider Landon’s interest in his education at Douglas High School; “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards;” and Douglas County’s interest, including the not-insignificant burdens that the additional safeguards would entail. See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335. We note that “administrative proceedings need not cleave to strict state evidentiary rules.” In re Estate of Covington, 450 F.3d 917, 923 (9th Cir. 2006). 22 WYNAR V. DOUGLAS CNTY. SCH. DIST. Before his expulsion, Landon received written notice of the charges and a list of possible witnesses. He was given “the right to be represented by an advocate of [his] choosing, including counsel,” to present evidence and to call and crossexamine witnesses. Landon argues his due process rights were violated because he was not provided with evidence in advance of the hearing and because no witness testified to any disruption and hence he could not cross-examine on that point. The additional procedures conceived by Landon were not constitutionally required. To begin, Landon had the key evidence—he acknowledged writing the messages and he had access to them through his MySpace account. As to witnesses on disruption, this is a question of the weight of the evidence, not a due process violation. In any event, Tinker does not require actual disruption before a school can impose discipline. III. DUE PROCESS NOTICE CLAIM Landon’s notice argument—that his expulsion violated due process because he could not have known that he could be expelled for writing the MySpace messages—is without legal support. “Given the school’s need to be able to impose disciplinary sanctions for a wide range of unanticipated conduct disruptive of the educational process, the school disciplinary rules need not be as detailed as a criminal code which imposes criminal sanctions.” Fraser, 478 U.S. at 686. Apart from common sense, the school’s student handbook, which is distributed at the beginning of each year, gave adequate warning to Landon that he could face sanctions for his alarming statements about shooting classmates. See id. The handbook reproduced verbatim the portion of § 392.4655 WYNAR V. DOUGLAS CNTY. SCH. DIST. 23 that the school board found Landon to have violated. In addition, the handbook stated in a separate section that behavior that was “intimidating, harassing, threatening, or disruptive” was subject to disciplinary action. Landon was also on notice that he could face discipline even for certain off-campus actions. Unlike the portion of § 392.4655 dealing with fights, the portion dealing with threats does not contain a geographic limitation. Compare § 392.4655(1)(a) (deeming a student a habitual disciplinary problem if he or she has “threatened or extorted” a classmate, teacher, or school employee, with no specification of the location of the threat or extortion) with § 392.4655(1)(b) (deeming a student a habitual disciplinary problem if he or she “has been suspended for initiating at least two fights on school property, at an activity sponsored by a public school, on a school bus or, if the fight occurs within 1 hour of the beginning or end of a school day, on the pupil’s way to or from school”). IV. APPLICABILITY OF § 392.4655 The district court correctly held that Douglas County did not misinterpret § 392.4655 in applying it to Landon. That section provides that “a principal of a school shall deem a pupil enrolled in the school a habitual disciplinary problem if the school has written evidence which documents that in 1 school year . . . [t]he pupil has threatened or extorted, or attempted to threaten or extort, another pupil or a teacher or other personnel employed by the school.” § 392.4655(1)–(1)(a). According to Landon, he could not be “deemed a habitual disciplinary problem” under § 392.4655 24 WYNAR V. DOUGLAS CNTY. SCH. DIST. because he only committed a single act.10 Although the statute requires multiple occurrences for certain types of conduct before a student is deemed a habitual disciplinary problem, it does not require more than one occurrence of threat or extortion. As the district court pointed out, this “shows the legislature’s intent to hold a single act of threatening conduct an expellable offense.” The plain language of the statute, which includes the legislative definition of “habitual disciplinary problem” in this context, is controlling. Landon’s argument that he could not be expelled because he did not intend to harm or intimidate anyone is equally unpersuasive. Douglas County’s correspondence with Landon’s parents and the board minutes stated that Landon was being charged with a violation of board policy and Nev. Rev. Stat. § 392.4655, an administrative statute without an intent requirement. Douglas County’s reference to a different, criminal statute—Nev. Rev. Stat. § 392.915, with which Landon was not charged—in those same documents did not incorporate the intent element of that statute. In any event, the school was not acting in the role of a government prosecutor enforcing a criminal statute. Douglas County was not required to prove Landon’s subjective intent in writing the messages before expelling him. AFFIRMED. 10 On appeal, Landon also argues that § 392.4655 is facially unconstitutional because it is overbroad and vague. Because he did not raise this argument before the district court, we decline to consider it here. See Dream Palace v. Cnty. of Maricopa, 384 F.3d 990, 1005 (9th Cir. 2004).