## Facts

- Eleven Oxnard High School students sued school district officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging suspensions and expulsions arising from campus unrest on October 14–15, 1976.
- The students were accused of conduct allegedly contributing to a riot, including fighting, assaulting a teacher, threats, and participation in disturbances.
- The district issued expulsion notices to parents; at least some notices stated the charges and a board meeting date but did not describe rights to attend, have counsel, or present evidence.
- The school board held expulsion hearings and ordered expulsions; some students sought new hearings on due process grounds, which the board initially refused.
- A federal temporary restraining order prevented expulsions for several students and raised concerns about notice defects and board impartiality.
- The district rescheduled expulsion hearings with revised notices; students contended the process remained constitutionally defective due to board precommitment, the superintendent’s role in deliberations, counsel advising both “prosecution” and board, and heavy reliance on hearsay and unsworn material.
- The court reviewed (1) whether procedures satisfied due process and (2) whether the evidence supported each student’s expulsion.

## Issues

1. Whether the expulsion notices and hearing procedures provided students constitutionally adequate due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the structure and conduct of the expulsion proceedings created an unconstitutional presumption of bias in the decisionmaker.
3. Whether the evidence presented, including hearsay and limited eyewitness testimony, was sufficiently competent and credible to support expulsion decisions for individual students.
4. What relief is proper when expulsions are tainted by due process violations, including whether expulsions must be set aside, students reinstated, or new hearings ordered.

## Decision

- The court held that expulsion-level discipline requires meaningful notice and a fundamentally fair hearing, and that several students were denied due process.
- The court found certain notices constitutionally inadequate because they failed to inform students of key hearing rights, including attendance, representation by counsel, and the ability to present evidence and witnesses.
- The court concluded that aspects of the board process created a presumption of bias for serious discipline, including prior board involvement, the superintendent’s participation during deliberations, and counsel’s overlapping advisory roles.
- The court ruled that due process did not require the district to attempt lesser sanctions before choosing expulsion.
- The court reviewed the record student-by-student, setting aside expulsions where procedures were defective and/or proof was insufficient, while upholding expulsions supported by reliable evidence under constitutionally adequate procedures.
- The court ordered relief tailored to each student, including reinstatement and/or new hearings where required.

## Legal Principles

- Public school students have protected interests in continued education and in avoiding arbitrary stigma; expulsions require more formal safeguards than short suspensions.
- Due process in expulsion proceedings requires timely, meaningful notice of the charges and the time and place of the hearing, and notice must communicate core participation rights, including presence, counsel, and presenting evidence and witnesses.
- Students facing expulsion must be given a meaningful opportunity to present evidence and, where appropriate, confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, subject to reasonable limits consistent with school order.
- Reliance on hearsay and unsworn materials is not categorically barred, but the absence of essential eyewitness testimony can undermine whether the district carried its burden with competent, credible evidence.
- A constitutionally adequate hearing requires an impartial decisionmaker; overlapping institutional roles and prior involvement can create a presumption of bias inconsistent with due process.
- Due process regulates fairness of procedure, not whether administrators must try lesser disciplinary alternatives before expulsion.
- Certain procedural rights may be waived when a student proceeds after receiving an opportunity for a continuance or a new hearing following amended charges.

## Conclusion

The court held that multiple expulsions stemming from campus unrest were invalid because defective notice, biased decisionmaking structures, and unreliable proof denied students procedural due process, while other expulsions were sustained where procedures were fair and the evidence sufficiently credible; the remedies included reinstatement and new constitutionally adequate hearings.


Gonzales v. McEuen, 435 F. Supp. 460 (C.D. Cal. 1977)