Opinion ID: 395225
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Deprivation of Appellant's Scholarship and Relationship with Arizona State University.

Text: 50 Appellant's complaint makes abundantly clear that, while Kush wanted appellant to get off the team and surrender his scholarship, appellant desired either to red shirt or to transfer to another school without suffering the suspension of his eligibility for financial aid for one year as required by the NCAA rules. Kush refused to accede to either request. This refusal does not amount to a deprivation of an interest in liberty or property under the authorities previously cited. Appellant had no right guaranteed by state law to enjoy either alternative. 51 Appellant did enjoy a right against cancellation or gradation of his scholarship during the period of its award for athletic reasons and against revocation except for good cause, and only after a proper hearing, if so requested. See p. 5594, supra. We will assume, without deciding, that these NCAA rules created an interest in property within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Our difficulty is that the appellant has failed to allege a deprivation of these rights. His allegations do not even reveal the period of the scholarship award or that he requested a hearing pursuant to NCAA rules. Nor does appellant explain how his scholarship or NCAA rules created a right to be red-shirted or to transfer without loss of eligibility under these circumstances. Furthermore, the issue of Kush's consent to a restriction-free transfer arose, indeed only could arise, when appellant sought to surrender his scholarship and continue his football career without interruption and with immediately available scholarship aid at a school other than Arizona State University. Kush's failure to assist him in this endeavor could in no way have infringed the appellant's continued enjoyment of scholarship rights at Arizona State University. Kush's refusal deprived appellant of no interest in property within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The interest in property we have assumed arguendo that appellant possessed was not that of which appellant asserts he was deprived. 52 We, therefore, conclude that Count Four has failed to state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.