A federal judge from the District of Minnesota has dismissed the lawsuit of a former student athlete, who alleged that the state’s high school athletic association and several individual defendants conspired to violate his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In so ruling, the court found that the defendants’ actions were not “egregious” enough to validate the plaintiff’s claim.
The plaintiff in the case was Franco Torrescano DeLaTorre, an 18-year-old junior at Cretin-Derham Hall High School (CDH). DeLaTorre’s mother and father were divorced in Mexico in 2003, which would become an issue in the case. Here’s why: In 2012, DeLaTorre, his mother, and his sister moved to the United States with his father’s permission. That same year, his mother and father agreed that he would return to Mexico to live with his father for one year of high school, which he did the following year. But when he tried to return to CDH for his junior year and retain eligibility to play soccer, the Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL) balked, ruling that he would not be eligible until the 2016-17 season, his senior year.
DeLaTorre appealed, as did CDH, arguing that he should have been able to use the divorce waiver, which waives the requirement that a player must sit out a year.
MSHSL Associate Director Craig Perry informed the appellants that “family decision does not constitute special or unusual circumstances justifying the waiver of the transfer and residence bylaw. Therefore, the request for a hearing is denied.”
DeLaTorre sued, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), for violations of his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. He also asserted a claim against the League for breach of contract.
On the due process claim, the defendants argued that DeLaTorre “cannot show that he has a constitutionally protected property or fundamental liberty interest to participate in interscholastic varsity athletics.”
The court noted that to successfully make a claim for a violation of procedural due process, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that “(1) he had a life, liberty, or property interest protected by the Due Process Clause; (2) he was deprived of this protected interest; and (3) the state did not afford him adequate procedural rights prior to depriving him of the property interest.” Stevenson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. # 5, 800 F.3d 955, 965-66 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting EJS Props., LLC v. City of Toledo, 698 F.3d 845, 855 (6th Cir. 2012)).
It added that “several cases that have addressed whether Minnesota recognizes a property interest in eligibility for interscholastic varsity athletics did so in the context of motions for preliminary injunctive relief. The cases are not adjudications on the merits. See Hubbard Feeds, Inc. v. Animal Feed Supplement, Inc., 182 F.3d 598, 603 (8th Cir. 1999). … In the absence of a statute, regulation, or case that definitively includes eligibility for interscholastic athletic competition within the right to a public education under Minnesota law, the court concludes that the right to a public education under Minnesota law does not include eligibility for interscholastic varsity athletic competition.”
The court continued, noting that DeLaTorre “had notice of the League’s eligibility bylaws. The League published them on the Internet. … DeLaTorre was given a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the start of the fall athletic season, at the start of the season, and in the weeks and months that followed.”
Franco Torrescano DeLaTorre v. Minnesota State High School League, David Stead, and Craig Perry; D. Minn.; Civil No. 16-235 (JNE/KMM), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108766; 8/16/16
Attorneys of record: (for plaintiff) James T. Smith, Huffman, Usem, Crawford & Greenberg, P.A. (for defendants) Kevin M. Beck and Patrick J. Kelly, Kelly & Lemmons, P.A.
