Just an Honest Review

Understanding the Court System

The seminal facts of Wells v. Columbus Technical College are as followed.  

“Mr. Wells, a former welding student at Columbus Tech, was suspended for

12 months after multiple incidents of “unacceptable behavior.  In the first incident,

which resulted in a written warning, Mr. Wells was involved in a verbal and

physical altercation with another student. The exact details of the second incident

are unclear, but involved Mr. Wells and two other students. Dr. Linn Storey, Vice-

President of Academic Affairs, read Mr. Wells the [second- incident] report, and

warned him that another incident would result in suspension. In the third

incident, Mr. Wells confronted two of his teachers, Mr. William Cooper and Mr.

Ronnie McBride, and accused them of lying in the [second-incident] report.  After a

brief verbal exchange, Mr. McBride asked him to leave, but Mr. Wells refused.

Campus security eventually escorted Mr. Wells off campus (Wells v Columbus Technical College, 2013).” 

 “Vice-President Storey sent Mr. Wells a suspension letter, which set forth a

12-month suspension for violations of the Student Code of Conduct.  Mr. Wells

filed a written notice of appeal to the Office of the President.  President J. Robert

Jones upheld the suspension, citing Mr. Wells’ “inability to manage [his] anger.”  The procedural history of the case started from the district court and ended when the plaintiff was denied certiorari by the United States Supreme Court (Wells v Columbus Technical College, 2013).” 

 

 

 

The main laws that were violated in this case were procedural and substantive due process claims.  For example, denial of a pre-deprivation hearing and a post-deprivation hearing; not utilizing the adequate state remedy of mandamus.  In addition to these procedural and substantive due process claims, claims of qualified immunity and continuing danger were issues that derived from the core issues of denial of pre and post-deprivation hearings. 

 

The laws that were violated in this case are civil public laws that deal with the relationships and disagreements that individuals and institutions have with the state as a sovereign entity (Carp, Stidham, & Manning, 2014, pp. 8-9).  Most civil litigation lies within private law (Carp, Stidham, & Manning, 2014, p. 9), but are not always subject to prison time.  Most of these civil violations are penalized largely through monetary sanctions called compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.   Incidentally no sanctions were imposed on the defendants, but the sanctions in this case would have been extremely large due impart to the asking of the plaintiff and in the interest of ethics. 

 

In Wells v. Columbus Technical College (2013), the plaintiff filed his initial complaint in the United States Middle District Court of Georgia, Columbus division.  The State Attorney General office of Georgia was assigned to handle this particular case, appointing Laura Lones and Devon Orland to represent the defendants.  Choosing to file his 1983 in the U.S. Middle District of Georgia over the state court of Georgia because his 14^th amendment rights were violated.  Mr. Wells had exhausted all his administrative remedies, and the extra year or two it would take going through the state system would have been a waste of the plaintiff’s time.  In Mr. Wells’ Rule 40 petition to the 11^th Circuit, the lawyers for the respondents argued that:  “Failing to use the adequate state remedy of mandamus under O.C.G.A. 9-6-20 (McKinney v. Pate) is why the District Court and the 11^th Circuit [said] Petitioner failed to state a claim of procedural due process,” because he did not exhaust all his appeal remedies with the state before filing with the federal courts.   Also that the adequate state remedy of mandamus did not have to be written in the official statutory language of CTC/TCSG policy (Reams v. Irwin, 2009).   

 

The outcome of the case is stated throughout the eight page opinion of the 11^th Circuit court of appeals.  The decision was handed down by Circuit judges Wilson, Jordan, and Anderson, affirming the decision of the district court.   The court ruled that the appellants were entitled to qualified immunity in both official and individual capacity, and that an adequate state remedy did exist; “precluding Mr. Wells’ post-deprivation procedural due process claim.”  As a result of the “continuing danger” exception being applied here, the appellant was not entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing. 

 

 

In conclusion, as in all college disciplinary cases a student is owed procedural due process safeguards that has well been established by the courts stemming from the 60s, 80s, and the 90s.  The courts made rulings that were inconsistent with the facts of the case as argued by the plaintiff.  Comparing the briefs submitted by the lawyers for the defendants and the decisions handed down by the courts, one can see how the courts ruled one-sided, in favor of the arguments made by the lawyers for the defendants.  The District court never made a ruling on the disproportionate imposition of the12-month suspension (Loggins v. Thomas, 2011); and failure to conduct a preliminary investigation according to college policy.  Both were stated in plaintiff’s initial complaint.  Even when these issues were argued in the plaintiffs non-oral arguments.  Even if the “continuing danger” exception is applied, the 12-month suspension and failure to conduct a preliminary investigation; is the argument enough to grant him a trial?  When the plaintiff was not given a post-deprivation hearing according to college policy, the District court judge should have given him a trial, allowing him the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses (Carp, Stidham, & Manning, 2014, p. 40).  Coincidentally, the last case decided on the continuing danger issue by the 11^th Circuit court of Appeals was Barnes v. Zaccari (2012). Nonetheless, if you look at the eight-page opinion by the 11^th Circuit in Wells v. Columbus Technical College, the issue is still percolating.  The 3^rd Circuit also had similar problems deciding on the issue of “continuing danger,” due to the percolating of the issue.  The plaintiff filed his case pro se, and was not very familiar with the civil process.  Consequently, the formatting of his complaint was not in the style that the courts would have liked, nor was he taken serious in the filing of his complaint due to the ‘cultural background’ of the area where the court is located.  “Like the law, judges are viewed ambivalently by Americans.  In general, judges are held in inordinately high esteem… (Carp, Stidham, & Manning, 2014, p. 18).”  The percolating of issues in our judicial system are based on timing, evinced by recent landmark decisions by the Supreme Court.  If I were a judge in this case, it would have gone to trial.  As a result of going to trial witnesses and evidence would have been disclosed bringing forth what the judge was not allowed to see through non-oral arguments.  Moreover, this case was one where facts and evidence that were presented by the plaintiff were not even considered due to unknown reasons not stated in either the district court’s opinion or the 11^th Circuits opinion.  I know that Allah does everything for a reason, I just want to know exactly why justice did not prevail in this case where facts and evidence were correctly argued and presented.