## Facts

- Allan Than, a third-year medical student, took a surgery exam proctored by two observers.
- The proctors reported repeatedly seeing Than look at another student’s exam during the test.
- A post-exam comparison showed the two exams had identical answers to 88% of the questions both students answered incorrectly.
- The medical school held a disciplinary hearing and expelled Than for academic dishonesty.
- Than challenged the first hearing in state court; the Texas Supreme Court found a due process defect because Than was excluded from part of the evidentiary proceeding and ordered a new hearing.
- The school conducted a second hearing with notice, an impartial hearing officer from another medical school, counsel for Than, witness examination and cross-examination, documentary evidence, and testimony from the proctors and a testing expert.
- The hearing officer issued a detailed written decision finding Than cheated; the university president affirmed the expulsion.
- Than then sued in federal court alleging federal procedural due process violations arising from the second hearing and expulsion.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment barred federal claims against the University of Texas Medical School/UT Health Science Center.
2. Whether qualified immunity barred damages claims against university officials sued in their individual capacities.
3. Whether the procedures used in the second disciplinary hearing satisfied federal procedural due process.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court.
- Claims against the university entity were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
- Individual-capacity claims against the officials were barred by qualified immunity.
- Summary judgment for defendants on the due process challenge to the second hearing was proper because the second hearing provided constitutionally sufficient process.

## Legal Principles

- State university components treated as arms of the state are generally immune from federal suit under the Eleventh Amendment absent waiver or valid congressional abrogation.
- Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates clearly established federal law.
- In reviewing an academic disciplinary expulsion, federal procedural due process is satisfied when the student receives notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before an impartial decision-maker, including the chance to present evidence and challenge adverse evidence.
- Where a procedurally defective initial hearing is followed by a properly conducted rehearing that provides adequate safeguards, the due process analysis centers on the later proceeding rather than the earlier defects.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld the student’s expulsion because the second hearing provided adequate procedural protections under federal due process, while Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity independently barred claims against the university and its officials.


Than v. Univ. of Tex. Med. Sch. at Hous., 188 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 1999)