Langley v. Monroe County School District
264 F. App'x 366 (2008)
Rule of Law:
A student's temporary, disciplinary transfer to an alternative school does not implicate a constitutionally-protected property interest under the Due Process Clause, provided the alternative placement does not amount to a complete exclusion from the educational process.
Facts:
- Kathy Langley drank part of a beer and left the partially-full can in the console cupholder of her family's Ford Mustang.
- A few days later, her daughter, Laura Langley, an honor roll student at Smithville High School, drove the Mustang to school because her own car was not working.
- Laura was unaware of the presence of the beer can in the car's console.
- An assistant principal noticed the car lacked a parking decal and, upon inspection to determine its owner, discovered the beer can.
- The principal, Sam Wilson, after consulting the superintendent, informed Laura she would be transferred to an alternative school for thirty days.
- The punishment was based on the school district’s 'zero tolerance' policy, which made Laura's lack of knowledge about the beer irrelevant.
- Laura attended the alternative school for five days before withdrawing from the school district and obtaining her GED rather than completing the punishment.
Procedural Posture:
- The Langley family (Plaintiffs) filed suit against the Monroe County School District (Defendant) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
- The complaint alleged state law violations and a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of a constitutionally-protected property interest (substantive due process).
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district on the state law claims.
- The substantive due process claim was tried before a jury, which rendered a verdict for the Monroe County School District.
- The Langleys filed motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, both of which the district court denied.
- The Langleys (Plaintiffs-Appellants) appealed the denial of their post-trial motions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with the school district as the Defendant-Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a student's temporary transfer to an alternative school for disciplinary reasons implicate a constitutionally-protected property interest under the Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Per Curiam - Per Curiam
No, a student's assignment to an alternative school for disciplinary reasons does not implicate a constitutionally-protected property interest. The court's decision is controlled by its prior holding in Nevares v. San Marcos Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., which established that such a transfer is not a deprivation of the right to public education that would trigger due process protections. Citing the Supreme Court's guidance in Wood v. Strickland, the court emphasized that federal courts are not meant to correct every error made by school administrators, especially when no specific constitutional guarantee is violated. Because Laura still received educational assignments and had access to a teacher at the alternative school, her placement was not a complete exclusion from the educational process, which might have implicated a property interest. Therefore, the precedent of Nevares directly forecloses the Langleys' claim.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the high degree of deference federal courts in the Fifth Circuit grant to the disciplinary decisions of local school administrators. It solidifies the principle from Nevares that a transfer to an alternative school is not equivalent to a suspension or expulsion, and therefore does not trigger constitutional due process protections. The decision highlights the judiciary's reluctance to intervene in the application of school 'zero tolerance' policies, even when they produce results that seem harsh or irrational to an outside observer. For students and parents, this case signals that federal court is not a viable avenue for challenging disciplinary transfers unless the alternative placement is so deficient that it amounts to a total denial of education.
