make significant comments to one case brief
Joseph Caldwell vs The University of New MexicoCIV 20-0003 JB/JFRFacts: The plaintiff Joseph Caldwell is a former basketball player for the University of New Mexico. On December 16, 2019, the Albuquerque Police responded to an accusation of battery against Joseph Caldwell. Shortly after he received an email from the Dean of Students office stating that because of the recent accusations he was being banned from the campus except for classes and hospitals/clinics. December 19, three days after the police responded to the incident Caldwell met with the school administrations and the Athletic department. The meeting resulted in Joseph Caldwell being banned from the campus indefinitely, kicked off the basketball team, and the same day he received an eviction notice. The next day December 20, Caldwell met with the office of equal opportunity where denied the charges against him. Afterwards the Office of Equal Opportunity met with the Dean Nasha Torrez, who reiterated that Caldwell was still suspended and that they were still debating extending it. She also made it known that Joseph Caldwell would not have a chance to appeal his ban. January 13, 2020, Caldwell filed his First Amended Complaint. Caldwell had received no written explanation from Dean Torrez detailing her reasons for imposing the campus ban, and Caldwell has had no opportunity to appeal the decision. In this case it’s a question of whether they violated amendments and didn’t give Caldwell due process. The fifth amendment states that nobody shall be deprived of life, liberty, and/or property without due process. Also, the fourteenth amendment extends such protections to the states. Due process guarantees fairness, and the minimum requirements include an opportunity for the accused to comment.Issue: The issue is whether the University of New Mexico violated Plaintiff Caldwell’s right to due process.Ruling (Holding): The ruling is that the court decided that Caldwell did not have enough sufficient facts to state a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Nunez. The court also dismissed his due process claim saying that the University of New Mexico afforded Caldwell sufficient process and that Dean Nunez is entitled to qualified immunity.Rationale: The courts dismissed Caldwell failure of due process claims ruling that he didn’t have sufficient facts. They also stated that he was granted a fair process and he had his opportunity to comment upon the accusations. During this case the fifth amendment came up a lot. The fifth amendment states that nobody shall be deprived of life, liberty, and/or property without due process. Also, the fourteenth amendment extends such protections to the states. Due process guarantees fairness, and the minimum requirements include an opportunity for the accused to comment. Caldwell contended that he had a property interest in his continued enrollment at UNM, He had a property interest in playing basketball for UNM, And he had a liberty interest in his reputation and his future professional basketball career. The courts determined that Caldwell did not have a property interest in playing college basketball because participating in college sports is not constitutionally protected. Next the courts decided that plaintiff Caldwell’s side does not support the liberty clause. They stated that a damage to reputation could lessen chances of employment but is still insufficient to use the due process clause.Important Information: The school policy states that “Should the Dean of Students Office take action based on the investigation’s findings, both parties will have equal rights to appeal the action…Both parties also will have the equal right to appeal the results of the grievance of the Dean of Students Office’s decision”
0 comments