From Soliz v. Alamo Colleges Dist., decided by Judge David Ezra (W.D. Tex.) on Sept. 16:
Plaintiff Joseph Soliz, who is proceeding pro se, was at all times relevant to this case a student at St. Philip's College, an individual college within the Alamo Community Colleges District ("ACCD") system. He was enrolled in a class taught by Roy Ruiz, named as a defendant here.
On January 17, 2024, Soliz and Ruiz got into a dispute during class. Soliz was working on a lab exercise regarding electrical circuits. His digital multimeter alarmed at least once. Ruiz came over and offered to assist him, and Soliz told him that he would "get it figured out." Ruiz then explained multiple times to Soliz that he was not following directions. Soliz insisted that he was doing it his own way and asked Ruiz not to "micromanage" him. Ruiz took away his lab papers, and Soliz took them back, refusing to relinquish them. Ruiz threatened to summon campus police and instead summoned Elizabeth Leon, a St. Philip's staff member. Ms. Leon attempted to resolve the issue with Soliz, but Soliz did not cooperate and "told [her] the conversation was over."
The next morning, Ruiz sent an email to Soliz asking him not to attend class that day. The email explained that, in Ruiz's view, Soliz had been unduly combative and had misused equipment, which Ruiz believed posed a safety risk, and that Soliz had refused to follow instructions and disrupted the class. Soliz attended class anyway. Ruiz approached Soliz and said that if he refused to leave, Ruiz would call campus police. Soliz refused, and Ruiz followed through on his statement.
Campus police arrived and took Soliz with them to "temporary campus police offices." They showed Soliz the email that Ruiz had sent that morning, establishing the grounds for his removal from class. Campus administrators came by and were discussing the matter outside the office. Soliz, "hearing discussion about [him], left the campus police temporary offices and entered the hallway." Soliz briefly talked over the incident with school administrators, who planned to scheduled him for a student conduct meeting to be held on Monday, January 22, 2024. They then sent Soliz a notification for a Zoom meeting to take place on January 19, 2024. Soliz states he did not attend the meeting because it was too short notice, and because he was unable "to engage counsel or be able to research or craft a defense." As a result of the classroom dispute, Soliz states, he "was barred from both of Roy's class[es] he was enrolled in until he had additional safety instruction." …
Soliz sued on various theories, and the court rejected them all, adopting Magistrate Judge Richard Farrer's report and recommendation. Here's the analysis of the First Amendment claim (for more on the Fourth Amendment and Due Process Clause claims, see the opinion) from the Magistrate Judge:
Soliz does not identify a constitutionally protected activity for purposes of his First Amendment retaliation claim. He states only that he was engaged in "protected academic inquiry," but that is a legal conclusion, and his earlier-pleaded facts make clear he is complaining about how an instructor handled his failure to follow directions and enforce basic classroom rules.
His quibbles about the procedures in a lab assignment are not protected speech, and his cited cases largely regard the raising of viewpoints and intellectual disagreement in a school context. Nowhere else in Soliz's pleadings does he identify any particular statement or protected speech at issue.
He perhaps comes closest when he makes reference to his "objection to the use of religious symbols during class instruction" at some prior, unspecified time, but the pleadings make clear that the conduct complained of in the instant case is based on the immediate dispute between Soliz and Ruiz over disruptions of class and failure to follow instructions, and not in retaliation for these objections. Thus, Ruiz's actions were clearly not substantially motivated by this (vaguely described) earlier objection, or any other statement or activity. Any First Amendment retaliation claim that could be attempted against the police-officer defendants or other government actors would fail for the same reasons. Ultimately, the First Amendment retaliation claim is vague and conclusory as pleaded and fails as a matter of law.
Moreover, Soliz's pleaded facts establish that his dispute with Ruiz disrupted class. It is well settled that "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason—whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior—materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist. (1969). Soliz's pleaded facts deprive him of any claim on First Amendment grounds for this reason as well. See Dkt. No. 1-2 at 28 ("The Office of Student Conduct received four (4) [reports] and one Police Report between January 17-18, 2024. Every report alleges disruptive behavior, safety hazard concerns, among other possible violations of the [ACCD] Student Code of Conduct….").
Soliz's own pleaded facts demonstrate that he repeatedly refused to follow Ruiz's instructions during a lab assignment involving electric circuity. Soliz at one point caused a circuit to start alarming. Soliz rebuffed Ruiz twice when asked or reminded to follow instructions. Ruiz ultimately had to call Elizabeth Leon for assistance, and Leon then talked to Soliz. Soliz was uncooperative throughout. When asked not to return to class the next day, Soliz did so, necessitating the intervention by campus police discussed above, resulting in the cancellation of class. Plaintiff's First Amendment claim fails as a matter of law for this reason as well….
Gunnar Peterson Seaquist and Sara Labashosky (Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP) represent defendants.
The post When You're in a College Electrical Circuits Lab, Better Follow the Teacher's Instructions appeared first on Reason Magazine.
