Opinion ID: 3062823
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adequate State Remedy

Text: In McKinney, we explained procedural due process violations do not become “complete unless and until the State fails to provide due process. In other 1 The standard of review on all summary judgment issues is de novo. Menuel v. City of Atlanta, 25 F.3d 990, 994 n.7 (11th Cir. 1994). 2 words, the state may cure a procedural due process deprivation by providing a later procedural remedy; only when the state refuses to provide a process sufficient to remedy the procedural deprivation does a constitutional violation actionable under section 1983 arise.” 20 F.3d at 1557 (internal quotations and citation omitted). However, “[t]his directive is not an exhaustion requirement. Instead, this directive is a recognition that procedural due process violations do not even exist unless no adequate state remedies are available.” Cotton v. Jackson, 216 F.3d 1328, 1331 n.2 (11th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted). The district court erred by concluding the state remedies in this case were inadequate. At the time Ogburia filed his lawsuit, the last action that had been taken with respect to his termination was the Grievance Committee’s report and recommendation in his favor, recommending the Davis “case be investigated by a neutral committee before any final action is taken by the University.” In addition, the University’s grievance procedures provided the report of the Grievance Committee should be submitted to the Board of Trustees for final disposition. There is no dispute that the case had not been re-investigated or that the case had not been decided by the Board of Trustees as of the filing of this lawsuit. In fact, the lawsuit was filed approximately one month before the next meeting of the Trustees, and the Trustees never had the opportunity to act on the Grievance 3 Committee’s report and recommendation before the filing of the lawsuit. Thus, at the time Ogburia filed suit, there was still an adequate state remedy available and the last decision was in his favor. As there was an adequate state remedy available, the district court erred in finding that a claim for post-termination due process existed.2