Lucey v. Nevada ex. rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education

3 Citing cases

  1. Doe v. White

    440 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2020)   Cited 4 times
    Observing the area as “unsettled”

    As plaintiff acknowledges, the Ninth Circuit has not squarely addressed whether there is a property or liberty interest in continued attendance in higher education, under California law or the law of any other state. Plaintiff cites Lucey v. Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ. , 380 Fed. App'x 608 (9th Cir. 2010), in which the Ninth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished memorandum disposition a district court's grant of summary judgment. The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of university officials, holding that the officials did not violate the plaintiff student's procedural due process rights when they placed a hold on his transcript and notated his records with allegations of wrongdoing because he was provided with sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard.

  2. Heyman v. Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents of the Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ.

    Case No.: 2:15-cv-1228-APG-GWF (D. Nev. Mar. 12, 2019)   Cited 2 times
    Explaining that a plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant falsely represented a material fact

    They posit that I should take a deferential view to UNLV's disciplinary procedures, consistent with previous decisions in this court. See Lucey v. Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ., No. 207-cv-00658-RLH-RJJ, 2009 WL 971667, at *6 (D. Nev. Apr. 9, 2009), aff'd, 380 F. App'x 608 (9th Cir. 2010) ("A court's review under a breach of contract theory for violations of a university's established disciplinary procedures is limited to whether the procedures used were arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith.").

  3. Ashokkumar v. Elbaum

    932 F. Supp. 2d 996 (D. Neb. 2013)   Cited 9 times
    Finding that plaintiff had alleged a colorable § 1983 claim for injunctive relief directing state officials to meaningfully restore her academic standing

    As a result, the law distinguishes between academic and disciplinary dismissals, Hlavacek v. Boyle, 665 F.3d 823, 826 (7th Cir.2011), and in disciplinary cases, a student must receive notice of the charges and evidence and an opportunity to be heard on them. See, e.g., Willis v. Tex. Tech Univ. Health Scis. Ctr., 394 Fed.Appx. 86, 87 (5th Cir.2010); Lucey v. Bd. of Regents of the Nev. Sys. of Higher Ed., 380 Fed.Appx. 608, 610 (9th Cir.2010); Nash v. Auburn Univ., 812 F.2d 655, 663 (11th Cir.1987); see generally Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 87–89, 98 S.Ct. 948. This case involves what might be called “academic misconduct,” which shares characteristics of both academic and disciplinary proceedings.