A federal judge from the Eastern District of California has granted a motion to dismiss filed by California State University, Sacramento (CSUS) in a case in which the school was sued by the Men’s Rowing Club, which claimed it was denied procedural due process after the school suspended it.
The dispute began in late 2012 when the school’s interim assistant director of intramural and sport clubs suspended the club for failing to comply with the Tier 1 club training and competition requirements. The suspension came after the Rowing Club admitted that they used students that were not CSUS students to practice and compete. This, the defendant claimed, was “in direct violation of a (the school’s) sports club rule.” The suspension lasted until February 23, 2013.
The Rowing Club sued, alleging that CSUS should not have issued the suspension without prior notice and a hearing. Specifically, it claimed the suspension violated the written Student Conduct Procedures contained in the Policies and Procedures for CSUS.
In its analysis, the court noted that “a necessary prerequisite to any procedural due process claim is a recognized liberty or property interest.
“California case law has determined that a ‘student’s participation in interscholastic athletics, like any other extracurricular activity, is not protected by the due process guarantee of the federal Constitution.’ Ryan v. Cal. Interscholastic Fed’n-San Diego Section, 94 Cal. App. 4th 1048, 1059-60, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 798 (2001).
“Although participation in extracurricular activities is generally not a protected property right, a property right may nonetheless be created if mandatory rules or disciplinary policies are in effect. Brands v. Sheldon Cmty. Sch., 671 F. Supp. 627, 631 (N.D. Iowa 1987). As noted in Brands, ‘when a government must follow mandatory laws or regulations which limit its discretion to make a decision in any way or for any reason, those laws or regulations can create a property right which is deprived if those regulations are not followed.’ Id.
“To be entitled to the due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment, the plaintiff must allege a protected liberty or property interest. As stated in Brands, ‘a clear majority of courts addressing this question in the context of interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics has found that athletes have no legitimate entitlement to participate.’ Id. However, it is possible for a defendant to create a property interest by adopting mandatory regulations or policies. The plaintiff’s FAC refers to Executive Order 1006, which states that campuses ‘may establish codes of conduct for student organizations and procedures for sanctions against the organizations. Sanctions may include . . . suspension of recognition for a specified period of time . . . .’ FAC, ¶ 11. The plaintiff also relies on a provision from the Student Organization Handbook 2011-2012 which provides that ‘a student organization’s recognition may be withdrawn or otherwise suspended by Student Organization[s] & Leadership following a review of written charges presented to the Assistant Director of Student Organizations & Leadership.’ Id. at ¶ 13. The language of these provisions is permissive, not mandatory, and the plaintiff fails to provide any relevant policies, regulations, or procedures that would limit in any way the discretion of the defendant in disciplining student organizations such as the plaintiff.”
The court also took issue with the plaintiff’s “reliance on California case law as set forth in Andersen v. Regents of University of California, 22 Cal.App.3d 763, 99 Cal. Rptr. 531 (1972),” calling it “misguided.”
The plaintiff cited Andersen “for the proposition that in any college disciplinary proceeding, the student is entitled to notice and a hearing. However, Andersen involved disciplinary sanctions taken against a student for misconduct such as forging a professor’s signature. Andersen, 22 Cal.App.3d at 768. While the court’s analysis in Andersen may demonstrate that students have certain due process rights in the context of disciplinary actions, the same is not true in the context of extracurricular activities. This point was made explicit by the court in Ryan, which held that a ‘student’s participation in interscholastic athletics, like any other extracurricular activity, is not protected by the due process guarantee of the federal Constitution.’” 94 Cal. App. 4th at 1059-60.
Sacramento State University Men’s Rowing Club v. California State University, Sacramento; E.D. Cal.; No. 2:13-cv-00366-MCE-EFB, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17353; 2/11/14
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Michael James Zinicola, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Office Of Michael J. Zinicola, Sacramento, CA. (for defendant) Lorena C. Penaloza, LEAD ATTORNEY, California State University, Office of General Counsel, Office of the Chancellor, Long Beach, CA.
