Court Opinion

ID: 9879987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 18:51:12.382948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:04.931865
License: Public Domain

Karen R. Baker, Justice, concurring. I agree with the majority’s disposition in this case, however, I write separately to address McCoy’s failure to avail herself of the hearing process provided. The 2015-2016 Arkansas State University Student Handbook contains a section entitled “Formal Conduct Hearing Guiding Principles.” The section then sets forth thirteen guiding principles, four of which are applicable to McCoy’s due-process claim: a. . An alleged violator may request ,a pre-hearing conference prior to his/ her Formal Conduct Hearing. [[Image here]] e. A complete witness list must be turned into the Assistant Dean of Student Conduct one university business day prior to the hearing — a minimum of 24 hours prior to the hearing. The alleged violator is responsible for notifying his/her witnesses of the time, date and place of the hearing. f. Students may request, in writing, of the Office of Student Conduct a list of all witnesses and access to all information. All information requests .. must be done in writing and allow a minimum of one (1) business day for the information to be compiled from time, of request, [[Image here]] j. An alleged violator may select an advisor to be present at the hearing that may confer and give advice to the student in a quiet, confidential and nonjjjdisruptive manner.... A list of trained student advisors is available in the Office of Student Conduct. McCoy’s complaint states that she “was told the Chair of the Nursing Department would be present as a witness, so [McCoy] could ask her questions, but she was not,” Even assuming that this factual allegation is true, McCoy’s complaint fails to demonstrate that she submitted a witness list or requested a witness list from the Office of Student Conduct. McCoy’s complaint also fails to demonstrate that she requested a prehearing conference or selected an ad-visor to be present at the hearing. Thus, McCoy may not now claim'that the University’s hearing procedures violated her due procesé rights when she failed to avail herself of the process provided. In sum, because McCoy has failed to state a due process violation, no exception to sovereign immunity exists, and I concur with the majority’s-disposition. Goodson, J., joins.