Filed: May 19, 2014
Latest Update: May 19, 2014
Summary: SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENT
Summary: SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTE..
More
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff Vicenza Caruso-Famiglietti appeals from the October 23, 2013 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Hurley, J.), granting Defendants-Appellees' motion to dismiss.
On appeal, Caruso-Famiglietti argues that the district court erred in dismissing her procedural due process claim.1 Specifically, she contends that Defendants-Appellees violated her procedural due process rights by failing to provide an evidentiary hearing prior to excessing her. Caruso-Famiglietti grounds this claim on New York Education Law Section 2510(1), which some courts have suggested may require a predeprivation hearing when a tenured teacher's position is abolished and a similar position is concurrently created. See, e.g., DeSimone v. Bd. of Educ., S. Huntington Union Free Sch. Dist. 612 F.Supp. 1568 1570-71 (E.D.N.Y. 1985).
Even were we to conclude that Caruso-Famiglietti was terminated and that a pretermination hearing is required when a tenured teacher's position is abolished and a similar post is concurrently created — two issues we do not reach — Caruso-Famiglietti fails to plausibly plead that the newly created positions in this case were similar to her old position.
We have also analyzed Caruso-Famiglietti's due process claim under the framework set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). Weighing all of the Mathews factors in the balance, Caruso-Famiglietti has not plausibly alleged a procedural due process violation.
We have considered Caruso-Famiglietti's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
