In re W.M.

Re: Expulsion Appeal File 22-04-E on behalf of W. M. from East Central Public Schools 2580.

No. A22-0546

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

February 21, 2023

This Opinion is Nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Minnesota Department of Education File No. 22-04-E

John P. Edison, Marcus B. Jardine, Rupp, Anderson, Squires Waldspurger & Mace, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for relator East Central Public Schools)

Paulo M.C.C. de Castro, Disability Law Center, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent W.M.)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Martha J. Casserly, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Minnesota Department of Education)

Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Johnson, Judge.

JOHNSON, JUDGE.

A high school student was expelled in the middle of his senior year. He pursued an administrative appeal to the commissioner of education, who reversed the expulsion. The school district sought judicial review of the commissioner's decision in this court. Before the parties submitted their appellate briefs, the student graduated from high school. We conclude that the appeal is moot and that none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTS

East Central High School is located in Pine County and serves the communities of Sandstone, Askov, and Finlayson. On December 10, 2021, the school conducted a preplanned lockdown drill. A twelfth-grade student, W.M., was in a welding classroom with a teacher and other students, all of whom took shelter in a storage area in the back corner of the welding shop. During the drill, W.M. was intrigued by flashing green lights and used his cellphone to record a video of the lights. He edited the video and posted it to the Snapchat social-media platform with a caption: "it's a mf rave." The Snapchat post included an audio-recording of a voice on a school-wide intercom system and another voice of a person standing near W.M., who happened to be his teacher, saying, "it might make the shooter pissed off."

Soon thereafter, a student at a nearby high school saw and heard the Snapchat post. The student, who knew W.M., believed that there was an active shooter at W.M.'s high school. The student reported the Snapchat post to the principal of his high school, who reported it to the local police department which dispatched officers to East Central High School. Meanwhile, police officers called the principal of East Central High School, who then ordered a second lockdown. When police officers arrived at East Central High School, they performed a protective sweep to ensure that there was not a dangerous situation in the building. Police officers handcuffed W.M. and placed him in the back seat of a squad car, which was parked in front of the high school and was visible to concerned parents who had gone to the school. W.M. was held in the county jail for three days before being released.

On December 28, 2021, the superintendent of the East Central School District gave notice to W.M. and his parents pursuant to the Pupil Fair Dismissal Act (PFDA), Minn. Stat. §§ 121A.40-.575 (2022), that the school district was initiating an action to expel W.M. for 12 months. The notice stated three grounds for the proposed expulsion: (1) a willful violation of the school board's regulations, (2) willful conduct that caused a significant disruption, and (3) willful conduct that endangered others. See Minn. Stat. § 121A.45, subd. 2.

On January 11, 2022, W.M., who was represented by an attorney, participated in a hearing conducted by an independent hearing officer. The school district called five witnesses and introduced ten exhibits. W.M. called two witnesses and introduced three exhibits. On January 13, 2022, the hearing officer issued a 13-page order recommending that W.M. be expelled for 12 months based on the second and third grounds stated in the school district's notice. On January 18, 2022, the school board issued a two-page written decision adopting the hearing officer's recommendation, with slight modifications. The school board expelled W.M. until January 17, 2023.

W.M. pursued an administrative appeal of the school board's decision to the state department of education. See Minn. Stat. § 121A.49. On March 21, 2022, the commissioner of education issued a 36-page decision. The commissioner noted that, in In re Expulsion of A.D., 883 N.W.2d 251 (Minn. 2016), the supreme court stated that there is no endangerment if "the risk and possibility of harm is too tenuous to constitute substantial evidence of endangerment." See id. at 263. The commissioner reasoned that, in this case, "the mere action of posting a video referencing a rave is not inherently dangerous" and that there was "too tenuous a connection" between W.M.'s "choice to make a video about a rave and post it to social media" and any resulting disruption or endangerment and, thus, an inadequate basis to "hold [W.M.] responsible for the risk and possibility of disruption or danger from the police response." Accordingly, the commissioner concluded that the school board's decision was based on an error of law and that, under a proper view of the law, there was not substantial evidence to support the school board's decision. The commissioner also concluded that W.M.'s expulsion hearing was based on unlawful procedure because the hearing officer did not compel the testimony of the student who saw W.M.'s Snapchat post and the principal of the other high school who reported the matter to police. Ultimately, the commissioner reversed the expulsion and required the school district to "immediately enroll [W.M.] as a student in good standing." The commissioner imposed conditions on the school district in the event that it again chose to pursue W.M.'s expulsion. The commissioner also stated, "The portion of [W.M.]'s record referring to the expulsion and the district's unlawful dismissal of [W.M.] from school must be expunged from [W.M.]'s record within 15 calendar days of the date of this decision."

On April 19, 2022 (29 days after the commissioner's decision), the school district filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the clerk of appellate courts to seek judicial review of the commissioner's decision. See Minn. Stat. § 121A.50. No party to the appeal requested that the appeal be expedited. See Minn.App. Spec. R. Prac. 1; Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 127. On June 3, 2022, W.M. graduated from East Central High School and received his diploma. The school district and W.M. submitted their respective briefs between June 20 and August 3, 2022, and the court heard oral arguments in December 2022.^[1]

DECISION

The school district argues that the commissioner erred by reversing its expulsion decision. Specifically, the school district argues that the commissioner misapplied the PFDA's "willful conduct" standard, engaged in impermissible fact-finding, and wrongly concluded that the school district violated W.M.'s procedural rights.

In his responsive brief, W.M. first argues that this court should dismiss the school district's appeal on the ground that the appeal is moot because he has graduated from East Central High School. W.M. also argues in the alternative that the commissioner's decision is correct and should be affirmed.

In its reply brief, the school district argues that the appeal is not moot on the ground that "there is still an active controversy as to whether the school district must modify its records to change whether W.M. was expelled." The school district argues in the alternative that three exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply.

We begin by considering the issue of mootness.

A. Mootness

As a general rule, appellate courts "decide only actual controversies and avoid advisory opinions." In re McCaskill, 603 N.W.2d 326, 327 (Minn. 1999). If an event has occurred while an appeal is pending, and if the event makes "a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal will be dismissed as moot." In re Inspection of Minnesota Auto Specialties, Inc., 346 N.W.2d 657, 658 (Minn. 1984); see also Housing &Redevelopment Auth. ex rel. City of Richfield v. Walser Auto Sales, Inc., 641 N.W.2d 885, 888 (Minn. 2002). The key question is whether "'a decision on the merits is no longer necessary or an award of effective relief is no longer possible.'" State ex rel. Ford v. Schnell, 933 N.W.2d 393, 401 (Minn. 2019) (quoting Dean v. City of Winona, 868 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Minn. 2015)). That standard is not met if "the controversy is no longer of any practical significance." In re Application of Minnegasco, 565 N.W.2d 706, 710 (Minn. 1997).

To determine whether there is a live controversy, we look to the law governing the parties' dispute, the decision under review, and the appellant's request for relief. See id.; Mertins v. Commissioner of Natural Resources, 755 N.W.2d 329, 334 (Minn.App. 2008). The general policy of the PFDA, as stated by the legislature, is that "[n]o public school shall deny due process or equal protection of the law to any public school pupil involved in a dismissal proceeding which may result in suspension exclusion, or expulsion." Minn. Stat. § 121A.42. The act ensures that a student is not dismissed from school except for certain specified reasons. Minn. Stat. § 121A.45, subd. 2. The act allows a student to appeal a school board's dismissal decision to the commissioner of education, who may, among other things, "reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of" a student "have been prejudiced" by an error of law. Minn. Stat. § 121A.49. But the act does not contain any provision governing the retention or expungement of a school...