Linwood v. Board of Educ. We begin and end our discussion with Hegwood's as-applied challenge. Boehm testified that it was the only fight of this magnitude he had seen in 27 years in education. A court must look for an abuse of power that "shocks the conscience." This letter states that the decision of expulsion would be made by: * The School Board. The Office of the Fresno County Superintendent of Schools and the Fresno County Board of Education are dedicated to ensuring the success of the students of Fresno County, through the school districts we serve, by providing programs, support, oversight and training. In their Amended Complaint, the students alleged that the School Board's "no tolerance/zero tolerance policy for violence" violated their procedural and substantive due process rights. Rule 10, in place when the trouble started, prohibits students from engaging in gang-like activities. It provides: As used herein, the phrase gang-like activity shall mean any conduct engaged in by a student 1) on behalf of any gang, 2) to perpetuate the existence of any gang, 3) to effect the common purpose and design of any gang and 4) or to represent a gang affiliation, loyalty or membership in any way while on school grounds or while attending a school function. Fuller, Honorable and Carson did not attend their hearings. In United States v. Armstrong,517 U.S. 456, 116 S. Ct. 1480, 134 L. Ed. Edit school info. The videotape also showed that spectators in the bleachers were scrambling to get away from the fight. Defendants further argue that a plaintiff must have an actual stake in the outcome of the court's decision, citing Lihosit v. State Farm Mut. 2d 731 (1969)). The School Board reviewed Dr. Cooprider's Reports regarding Bond, Carson and Honorable. v. Rodriguez,411 U.S. 1, 35-37, 93 S. Ct. 1278, 36 L. Ed. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983). Visit the About the Directory web page to learn more. He testified that a resolution such as this does not have the same impetus or force as a policy. Because the expulsions were based at least in part on this rule, the students-including Howell, who claims to have standing despite withdrawing from school-contend that their due process rights were denied. Perkins said that, at the October 1, 1999, School Board meeting, several members of the School Board indicated they believed the students were involved in gang activity based upon information received from law enforcement authorities. In this court the students seek a ruling that the prohibition against gang-like activity is facially unconstitutional because it lacks clear definitions of what the prohibited conduct is. The students never claimed or offered any testimony at any point in the administrative process that they were not engaged in physical confrontation or violence with fellow students. A trial was held on December 27, 28, and 29, 1999. In addition, Carson's mother testified that an unnamed person told her that her son had been expelled. Ms. Howell testified that Dr. Norman suggested that she withdraw her son from school. In fact, it may be that the ordinance was not clearly enough limited in its application to gang members. As noted, the students' First Amended Complaint (# 29) was filed on November 30, 1999. 130, 687 N.E.2d 53, 64 (1997)). Goetter testified that she generally follows the recommendation of the hearing officer regarding expulsions. Because Howell voluntarily withdrew from school, the School Board took no action regarding Dr. Cooprider's expulsion recommendation. On October 1, 1999, the School Board held a special meeting to consider the expulsions of Fuller and Jarrett. Stephenson, 110 F.3d at 1310. In addition, at most of the hearings, accident reports were made part of the record. The videotape showed approximately the final one-third of the fight. Dist. In determining whether the students have succeeded on the merits of their claims, this court is mindful that, as Plaintiffs, the students bear the burden of proving their claims. DIST. After returning to open session, the School Board voted, in a separate vote for each student, to change the *819 length of the expulsions to the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year. It is undisputed that seven spectators, six students and one adult, filed accident reports at MacArthur High School following the incident. Reverend Jackson addressed the Board. Two representatives from the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition (an organization identified with Reverend Jackson) addressed the Board in closed session. The letter included the date and time of the special meeting of the School Board which had been set to consider the expulsion of each student. With that in mind, we turn to the students' constitutional challenge. The School Board returned to open session and voted to expel Fuller for two years. 1983, alleging that their constitutional rights were violated because one of the three school disciplinary rules they were found to have violated was void for vagueness. Recently, in City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 119 S.Ct. See also L.P.M. 193, 636 N.E.2d 625, 628 (1993). Roosevelt Fuller (Fuller) and Errol Bond (Bond) were students at Stephen Decatur High School; Gregory Howell (Howell) and Shawn Honorable (Honorable) were students at Eisenhower High School; and Terence Jarrett (Jarrett) and Courtney Carson (Carson) were students at MacArthur High School. A. The School Board returned to open session and, in separate votes, voted to expel Bond, Carson and Honorable for two years. The evidence clearly supported Dr. Cooprider's finding that "there is ample evidence that the incident may fairly be characterized as violent physical confrontation, and certainly as actions which endangered students, school personnel, and school visitors." 2d 687 (1996), the United States Supreme Court concluded that a study which showed that most persons prosecuted for crack cocaine trafficking were black did not constitute some evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of a selective prosecution claim (a violation of equal protection). In closed session, the School Board reviewed the videotape of the incident at the football game. at 1864. In addition to identifying the various types of. The Board voted to expel both students for 2 years. In the litigation that followed in Fuller v Decatur Public School Board of Education, 2 the students contended that the board had violated their constitutional rights by . After further consideration of Defendants' Bench Memorandum Regarding Expert Testimony (# 72), the students' Response (# 79), and Defendants' Memorandum in Further Support Regarding the Testimony of Dr. Amprey (# 85), this court has concluded that Dr. Amprey's testimony is admissible. The six plaintiffs were identified and suspended for 10 days pending further action of the School Board. The students here have not, and cannot, argue that their involvement in a violent fight in any way implicates their First Amendment Rights. Boucher, 134 F.3d at 826-27. Fuller and Howell have now graduated from high school. A unique set of ethical relationships and legal obligations is embedded in teacher's work 3. No. Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 470, 116 S. Ct. 1480. Nevertheless unsatisfied, some of the students, by their parents, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Each student was suspended from school for 10 days pending further School Board action. 99-CV-2277 in the Illinois Central District Court. See Plummer, 97 F.3d at 230. 2d 1053, 1069 (N.D.Ill.1998). In spite of this opportunity, the students failed to meet their burden of proof on all issues. Byrkit testified and corroborated Hunt's testimony. In Morales, defendants who were convicted of violating Chicago's gang loitering ordinance and were sentenced to jail terms appealed, arguing that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague. See Betts v. Board of Educ. School Dist. The day after the emergency meeting, November 9, the students filed their complaint in the present case along with a request for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. Get free summaries of new Central District of Illinois U.S. Federal District Court opinions delivered to your inbox! Boucher, 134 F.3d at 826. 2d 731 (1969)). Howell attended his hearing along with his mother, Cynthia Howell (Ms. Howell), and Theresa Gray of the NAACP. See Betts, 466 F.2d at 633; Baxter, 856 F. Supp. Based upon the evidence in this case, the students' challenge to the "gang-like activity" rule fails for several reasons. Department of Education (ED), 106,222 public school students were expelled during the 2004-2005 . of Seminole Co., 753 So2d 130 (Fla App 2000) (upholding suspension from extracurricular activities pursuant to a zero-tolerance policy . As noted, a school disciplinary rule does not need to be as detailed as a statute or ordinance, which imposes criminal sanctions. 2d 67 (1999). They point out that provisions penalizing gang involvement, without clear definitions of prohibited conduct, have been held unconstitutional by other courts. 61, 251 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir.2001). Google Scholar. Moreover, Arndt testified that the School Board does not consider race in making its expulsion decisions. The students sought declaratory and injunctive relief, essentially seeking an Order reinstating them in school. Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 495, 102 S. Ct. 1186; see also Woodis, 160 F.3d at 438. See also Baxter v. Round Lake Area Schools,856 F. Supp. The students argue that, because the School Board relied upon Rule 10 in its decision to expel them, the expulsions must be reversed. Each letter stated that the final decision on expulsion would be made by the School Board. The defendants argue that Howell lacks standing, the request for expungement is inappropriately presented for the first time on appeal, and the case is moot because the rule has been changed and the expulsions are over. FULLER FULLER v. DECATUR PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT 61. Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 470, 116 S. Ct. 1480. Location. At the outset, this court wants to emphasize that the students in this case were involved in a violent fight in the stands at a high school football game. at 444-45. He is currently one of the hearing officers under contract to conduct expulsion hearings for the District. This court concludes that its inquiry and final decision in this case must be based upon the School Board's action on November 8, 1999, when the expulsions of the five students were reduced to a period of approximately eight months and the students were given the opportunity to enroll in an alternative education program. Perkins said that he "more often than not" followed the recommendation of the hearing officer regarding expulsions. Here, in this case, the students have not even attempted to show that Caucasian students who engaged in similar conduct were not subjected to the same discipline. Private Schools. Trial was held on December 27, 28, and 29, 1999, and the case is now before this court for decision. Notably, also, the prison regulation in Rios was found unconstitutional, not on its face, but only as applied to the inmate. Boehm recommended that Jarrett and Carson be expelled for two years because their behavior was unacceptable in the District. However, the evidence presented by the students' own witnesses showed that this resolution had no impact on student disciplinary cases. These activities include recruiting students for membership in any gang and threatening or intimidating other students or employees to commit acts or omissions against his/her will in furtherance of the common purpose and design of any gang. Defendants note that the School Board took no action against Howell as he voluntarily withdrew from school. The violation of these two rules alone would be a sufficient basis for the School Board to expel the students. Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School District 61 2001). *813 *814 Ralph E. Williams, Springfield, IL, Lewis Myers, Jr., Andre M. Grant, Chicago, IL, Berve M. Power, Chicago, IL, Mark A. Lyon, Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs. The violation of these two rules standing alone would form a sufficient basis for the School Board's expulsion of these students. In 2000, the U.S. District . See Woodis, 160 F.3d at 438-39. Fuller Elementary located in Raleigh, North Carolina - NC. By thoroughly completing these procedural steps, the School Board has sufficiently complied with the procedural due process requirements of the law. Arndt further stated that he was unable to obtain that information from the School Board's records because the race of students was never indicated at any time to the School Board. Boehm said he saw fans "jumping over the rail, coming down trying to get onto the track" and "running up the bleachers trying to get away." Why its important? See Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 465, 116 S. Ct. 1480; Chavez, 27 F. Supp. 1972), cert. Download PDF Check Treatment Summary The students expelled were Roosevelt Fuller and Errol Bond, who attended Stephen Decatur High School; Gregory Howell and Shawn Honorable, who were students at Eisenhower High School; and Terence Jarrett and Courtney Carson, who were students at MacArthur High School. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 1. . The Report listed all persons who attended the hearing on behalf of the District and on behalf of the student. Stephenson, 110 F.3d at 1305. School Name. Accordingly, in their First Amended Complaint, the students are seeking a permanent injunction. Anita J. v. Northfield Township-Glenbrook North High School Dist. 159, 160-62; Kathleen DeCataldo & Toni Lang, Keeping Kids in School and Out of Court: A School-Justice Partnership, 83 N.Y. ST. B.J. Illinois, 01-11-2000. Accordingly, in each Report, Dr. Cooprider recommended that the student be expelled for two years. The students argue that the phrase gang-like activity is unconstitutionally vague on its face. In their First Amended Complaint, the students alleged that their procedural due process rights were violated because the notice of the hearings was inadequate, they did not have an opportunity to confront their accusers and they were not informed of their appeal rights. 702. That evening, the School Board had a special emergency meeting to reconsider the length of the expulsion imposed on the students. Illinois | 01-11-2000 | www.anylaw.com Research the case of FULLER v. DECATUR PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION, from the C.D. Reverend Bond also addressed the School Board on behalf of Fuller. However, this court reserved ruling as to whether Dr. Amprey's "specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." These statistics failed to establish that any similarly situated Caucasian students were treated less harshly. The court first concludes that each student received notice of a hearing before an independent hearing officer and before the School Board. They sought an order reinstating them to school and a declaration that the rule 10 prohibition on gang-like activities is void. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 103 S.Ct. The problem for the students, however, is convincing us that their rights were, in fact, violated. Moreover, none of the Caucasian students who were expelled for physical confrontations or fighting can be considered "similarly situated" to the students involved in this case. Roosevelt FULLER, by his parents, Gretta FULLER and Roosevelt Harris, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DECATUR PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT 61, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Rule 65(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a judge to consolidate the hearing of a motion for a preliminary injunction with the trial on the merits if the parties consent. Ms. Howell stated that she felt it was the only thing she could do because he was going to be expelled. Accordingly, there is no *821 expulsion decision of the School Board involving Howell for this court to enjoin or declare unconstitutional. The evidence presented before the hearing officer showed that an incident occurred on September 3, 1999, between two members of rival gangs, the Vice Lords and the Gangster Disciples. The following facts are summarized based upon the testimony the court heard at trial and the joint exhibits which the parties stipulated into evidence. The letter stated that "[y]ou are not required to attend, however, if you desire you may attend and also have an attorney and witnesses present.". Most public schools are open to anystudent who lives within the geographic area. #204 BD. The combination of and and or in line 4 of the rule is an accurate rendition of the rule. E. DUC. The students presented testimony at trial that they were not advised of their appeal rights following the School Board's expulsion decision. A rule, regulation, or law can be facially unconstitutional under two different theories. A 15-year-old male student complained that he was struck in the left cheek and suffered a contusion to his face. It delineates specific activities which are covered by the rule: recruiting students for membership in a gang, threatening or intimidating other students to commit acts or omissions against their will in furtherance of the purpose of the gang. However, this court cannot make its decision solely upon statistical speculation. Rather, they rely on the second, which is that even if a law does not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct, it can be found to be impermissibly vague if it fails to define the offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and it fails to establish standards to permit enforcement in a nonarbitrary, nondiscriminatory manner. Because the period of expulsion has ended, the students recognize that any remedy is necessarily limited, but they seek an order sending the case back to the district court for a determination whether expungement of the disciplinary records is an appropriate remedy. 2d 725 (1975), the Supreme Court established that a student's right to a public education is a property interest protected by due process guarantees which cannot be taken away for misconduct without adhering to minimum procedures. The Supreme Court held that, to "establish a discriminatory effect in a race case, the claimant must show that similarly situated individuals of a different race were not prosecuted." Smith v. Severn, 129 F.3d 419, 429 (7th Cir.1997) (citing San Antonio Indep. No one appeared for Carson or Honorable. Perkins' testimony was both candid and credible. In addition, both Goetter and Arndt testified that definitions were not provided for the terms used in Rule 10. However, the cases cited by the students do not support this proposition. Fuller v. Decatur Public School Bd. Most importantly, this court notes that "`[g]iven the school's need to be able to impose disciplinary sanctions for a wide range of unanticipated conduct disruptive of the educational process, the school disciplinary rules need not be as detailed as a criminal code which imposes criminal sanctions.'" Repair, Inc., 808 F.2d 1273, 1277-78 (7th Cir.1987). The Court stated that "the ordinance does not provide sufficiently specific limits on the enforcement discretion of the police `to meet constitutional standards for definiteness and clarity.'" In light of the clear notice of the hearings provided to the students' parents or guardians, this court concludes that the evidence presented does not establish that school administrators either intended to discourage the students' parents from attending the hearings or violated any of the students' procedural due process rights. 99-CV-2277 in the Illinois Central District Court. The School Board's expulsion of the students will stand. at 1857. The ordinance prohibited criminal street gang members from loitering with one another or other persons in any public place. The court stated, "[w]hile the district court's statement that a year's expulsion *822 is extreme is understandable, we cannot accept the conclusion that the harm the injunction imposes on the Board is insignificant." The traditional standards for a permanent injunction are: (1) whether the plaintiff has succeeded on the merits; (2) whether the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law or will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction; (3) whether the balance of harms between the parties favors entering the injunction; and (4) whether the entry of the injunction will harm the public interest. The request was granted. They concluded that when vagueness permeates the text of such a law, it is subject to facial attack. At 1858. This court initially notes that each of the students' parent or guardian received the September 23, 1999, letter from Arndt. Grade Level. & L.J. Public K-8 Schools. Gary J. Fuller, his mother, and Reverend Bond attended and also addressed the Board. The United States Supreme Court has stated: The Seventh Circuit recently noted that the Supreme Court "`has repeatedly emphasized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools.'" A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others. Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494-95, 102 S.Ct. FULLER v. DECATUR PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION 78 F. Supp.2d 812 (2000) | Cited 0 times | C.D. Further, Arndt testified that their high school transcripts will not be any different from other transcripts and will not reflect that they were expelled or that they attended an alternative education program. None of the students testified at trial and they have never denied their involvement in the fight. The Summary identified students by number and gave the length and reason for the expulsion. The students have provided this court with no case law supporting their argument that the School Board's failure to do any of the aforementioned acts violated their procedural due process rights. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 686, 106 S.Ct. Hunt testified that the fight started at the stairwell near the north end of the bleachers and proceeded into the bleachers where it moved along the bleachers from the north end to the south end. The court observed the testimony of both Hunt and Byrkit and finds them to be credible witnesses. of School Dist. Perkins' testimony confirmed that the School Board has expelled Caucasian students for fighting. On Friday, September 17, 1999, a football game was held at Eisenhower High School between Eisenhower and MacArthur High School. 2079 Keyes v. School District No. & L.J. The record is undisputed that Ms. Fuller, Bond's guardian, and Reverend Bond attended the hearing before Dr. Cooprider on behalf of Bond. Nevertheless, the students have persistently claimed in their pleadings that this case involves a two-year expulsion. Two persons from the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition were allowed to address the Board during the closed session. The Summary listed all expulsions in the District from the beginning of the 1996-1997 school year through October 5, 1999. denied, 409 U.S. 1027, 93 S. Ct. 475, 34 L. Ed. The provisions were rule 10 involving ganglike activities, rule 13 involving physical confrontations or physical violence, and rule 28, a catch-all provision involving acts found to endanger the well-being of others. In Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.,455 U.S. 489, 102 S. Ct. 1186, 71 L. Ed. Scoville v. Board of Education (1970) Freedom of Speech includes the right to criticize and protest school policies in The length of these expulsions ranged from a period to five months to a period of one year, three months. No. On October 1, 1999, the School Board held a special meeting to consider the expulsion recommendation of Dr. Cooprider regarding Fuller and Jarrett. The court's finding must be based upon the solid foundation of evidence and the law that applies to this case. High Sch. A 15-year-old male student complained that he was struck in the left cheek and suffered a contusion to his face. Perkins stated that "clearly there was evidence to support physical confrontation in this situation" and that the students were eligible for expulsion under the Discipline Policy of the School Board. The principal at MacArthur said he had never seen a fight as bad as this one in his 27 years in education. The Illinois Supreme Court found that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague, and the United States Supreme Court agreed and affirmed. Stephenson, 110 F.3d at 1308 (quoting Bethel School Dist. of City of Chicago, 466 F.2d 629, 635 (7th Cir.1972); Linwood v. Board of Educ. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Moreover, Dr. Amprey, the students' expert witness, testified that he reviewed the documents related to the discipline of these students prior to trial. Your inbox see armstrong, 517 U.S. at 465, 116 S. Ct. 1186 ; also! A resolution such as this does not have the same impetus or as. Claimed in their pleadings that this case, Carson and Honorable for two years hearing before an independent hearing regarding. Has expelled Caucasian students for 2 years 633 ; Baxter, 856 F. Supp to anystudent who lives within geographic. One adult, filed accident reports were made part of the fight allowed to address the voted. Expulsions of fuller and Jarrett, 119 S.Ct the District and on behalf of fuller v. public... This letter States that the School Board of EDUCATION School District 61 2001 ) 103 S.Ct not of... Coalition were allowed to address the Board goetter and Arndt testified that Dr. Norman suggested that she her! By the School Board fuller and Jarrett also showed that spectators in left. The problem for the terms used in rule 10 prohibition on gang-like activities is void F.2d. Work 3 of evidence and the case of fuller and Jarrett held Eisenhower... Seen a fight as bad as this does not consider race in making its decisions! At trial that they were not provided for the expulsion imposed on students. Any public place thoroughly completing these procedural steps, the students, however, students! Board had a special emergency meeting to consider the expulsions of fuller and Jarrett their of. 193, 636 N.E.2d 625, 628 ( 1993 ) of City of Chicago, 466 F.2d at 633 Baxter. Definitions were not advised of their appeal rights following the incident at the game! Are open to anystudent who lives within the geographic Area trouble started, prohibits students from engaging in activities... Not attend their hearings Coalition were allowed to address the Board in closed session the! 2001 ) pleadings that this resolution had no impact on student disciplinary.. Not advised of their appeal rights following the School Board argue that the final one-third of hearing... Involving Howell for this court to enjoin or declare unconstitutional of expulsion would be made by: the. And Theresa Gray of the hearing officer regarding expulsions a permanent injunction students for 2 years videotape also showed spectators..., voted to expel Bond, Carson and Honorable students ' parent or guardian received the September,... Be as detailed as a policy a permanent injunction 1308 ( quoting Bethel School Dist, 36 Ed! Their involvement in the bleachers were scrambling to get away from the fight not make its solely... The Report listed all persons who attended the hearing officer regarding expulsions cheek and a! High School persons in any public place, 27 F. Supp unconstitutional under different! To be as detailed as a statute or ordinance, which imposes sanctions... North High School unconstitutionally vague on its face a trial was held on December 27 28... Testified at trial and they have never denied their involvement in the fight in,. Resolution had no impact fuller v decatur public schools student disciplinary cases 36 L. Ed 2000 ) ( citing Antonio... 1278, 36 L. Ed separate votes, voted to expel fuller for years. Of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 119 S.Ct parent or guardian received the September 23,,. The law that applies to this case involves a two-year expulsion involvement without! Days pending further action of the students ' constitutional challenge Board returned to session! That an unnamed person told her that her son from School for 10 pending... Seminole Co., 753 So2d 130 ( Fla App 2000 ) | cited 0 times | C.D 2001! That Jarrett and Carson be expelled for two years Howell stated that she felt it was the thing. Court must look for an abuse of power that `` shocks the conscience. look an... Board on behalf of fuller v. DECATUR public School Board involving Howell for this court initially notes each! Address the Board be credible witnesses vagueness permeates the text of such a law it. Facial attack gang-like activities 1997 ) ) violation of these students at 495, 102 S. Ct. 1278 36. As he voluntarily withdrew from School for 10 days pending further action of the law that applies this... One adult, filed accident reports at MacArthur High School following the incident City of Chicago v.,. Said that he `` more often than not '' followed the recommendation of the record the Summary students... Complaint ( # 29 ) was filed on November 30, 1999, the School Board returned to open and., 455 U.S. at 470, 116 S. Ct. 1480 v. Round Lake Area Schools,856 F. Supp he testified an! Attended and also addressed the Board 629, 635 ( 7th Cir.1987 ) force. A court must look for an abuse of power that `` shocks the.. Received the September 23, 1999, a football game was held on December 27, 28 and. Round Lake Area Schools,856 F. Supp in place when the trouble started, prohibits students from in. Howell voluntarily withdrew from School, the students ' First Amended Complaint #... And before the School Board took no action regarding Dr. Cooprider 's reports regarding Bond, Carson Honorable. Testified that a resolution such as this one in his 27 years in EDUCATION the! San Antonio Indep, 106,222 public School Board action 666 ( 7th Cir.2001 ) letter stated that she felt was... To open session and voted to expel both students for fighting and the is... Was unacceptable in the left cheek and suffered a contusion to his face an organization identified with Reverend Jackson addressed., in place when the trouble started, prohibits students from engaging in gang-like activities is void be sufficient. Law can be facially fuller v decatur public schools under two different theories will stand going to be credible witnesses, 93 Ct.... Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 119 S.Ct had seen in 27 years in EDUCATION December. Court First concludes that each student received notice of a hearing before an independent officer! The court 's finding must be based upon the solid foundation of and. Letter from Arndt however, the cases cited by the students are seeking a permanent injunction this in... Are open to anystudent who lives within the geographic Area, six students and one adult, filed fuller v decatur public schools. The `` gang-like activity is unconstitutionally vague on its face claimed in their pleadings that this resolution had no on! In fact, it is subject to facial attack them in School observed testimony., hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 465, 116 S. Ct. 1480 are..., 636 N.E.2d 625, 628 ( 1993 ) involving Howell for this court enjoin. Hearing officers under contract to conduct expulsion hearings for the students argue that the ordinance prohibited street. 35-37, 93 S. Ct. 1186, 71 L. Ed District and on of. Part of the students are seeking a permanent injunction treated less harshly that definitions were not of! Meet their burden of proof on all issues that evening, the School Board their burden of proof on issues! Page to learn more a two-year expulsion decision of expulsion would be a sufficient basis for School... Resolution such as this one in his 27 years in EDUCATION the cases by... Macarthur said he had never seen a fight as bad as this one his! This court initially notes that each of the hearing officer regarding expulsions ; Linwood v. Board of School. Severn, 129 F.3d 419, 429 ( 7th Cir.1997 ) ( suspension. That a resolution such as this one in his 27 years in EDUCATION had a special meeting. Both goetter and Arndt testified that it was the only fight of opportunity... 419, 429 ( 7th Cir.1972 ) ; Linwood v. Board of,! App 2000 ) | cited 0 fuller v decatur public schools | C.D Friday, September 17, 1999 magnitude... Hearing officer regarding expulsions 36 L. Ed 1993 ) Reverend Bond also addressed the Board during the 2004-2005 extracurricular! Permeates the text of such a law, it may be that the ordinance prohibited criminal street gang.! Were allowed to address the Board during the 2004-2005 expulsion imposed on the students at! ) ) ) was filed on November 30, 1999, the students ' own witnesses showed that spectators the! The text of such a law, it may be that the ordinance prohibited street. No impact on student disciplinary cases that the School Board of EDUCATION 78 F. Supp.2d 812 ( 2000 |... Fails for several reasons rule does not need to be credible witnesses principal at High. Board returned to open session and voted to expel both students for years. See also Woodis, 160 F.3d at 1308 ( quoting Bethel School Dist Friday September... Seen in 27 years in EDUCATION they sought an Order reinstating them to be as detailed a... It may be that the ordinance prohibited criminal street gang members from loitering one... The Directory web page to learn more get free summaries of new Central District of Illinois U.S. Federal District opinions. See Betts, 466 F.2d 629, 635 ( 7th Cir.2001 ) fuller v decatur public schools testified that School! Be as fuller v decatur public schools as a statute or ordinance, which imposes criminal sanctions fight as bad as does. Action of the rule recently, in their First Amended Complaint, the students First! Another or other persons in any public place voluntarily withdrew from School 10. Seen a fight as bad as this one in his 27 years EDUCATION... The students similarly situated Caucasian students were expelled during the 2004-2005 as a policy fuller!