Pourya Shahmaleki (“Shahmaleki”) was a Ph.D. student in Mechanical Engineering. Over the course of 2012 and 2013, Shahmaleki repeatedly engaged in demanding and threatening behavior towards KSU staff members and students. This behavior occurred in multiple departments include housing, international student services, the graduate school, the Mechanical Engineering school, and the English Language Program. Multiple staff members made complaints about Shahmaleki’s threatening behavior. In April 2013, the incidents reached a breaking point with Shahmaleki repeatedly harassing members of the housing department and at one point refusing to leave a staff member’s office until a staff member escorted him out. After this incident, KSU began the process
…show more content…
Shahmaleki is from Iran and began attending the University in August 2011. Shahmaleki had many issues with staff and policies at the University, which often resulted in Shahmaleki displaying threatening or intimidating behavior. Many of these incidents led to staff and students filing complaints against the …show more content…
Should Count I to IV be dismissed because the statute of limitations has ran on the claims and the amendment does not relate back because the Plaintiff made a legal error instead of a factual error?
2. Are Shahmaleki’s claims against the individual KSU Officials barred by qualified immunity given that their actions with regard to Lee did not violate clearly established law of which they, as reasonable university officials, would have known as no controlling case law holds that in the University setting more due process is required then the “some kind of notice and afforded some kind of hearing” set out in Goss v. Lopez?
3. Does Shahmaleki’s procedural due process claim (Count I), fail to state a plausible claim for relief where under Kansas law, a graduate student lacks a property interest in continued enrollment at the University and in the alternative was sufficient due process provided to the student so that his rights were not violated?
4. Should Shahmaleki’s claim for denial of a liberty interest be dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim for relief under applicable law since nothing said was stigmatizing as a matter of law or disseminated by KSU
Shahmaleki is from Iran and began attending the University in August 2011. Shahmaleki had many issues with staff and policies at the University, which often resulted in Shahmaleki displaying threatening or intimidating behavior. Many of these incidents led to staff and students filing complaints against the …show more content…
Should Count I to IV be dismissed because the statute of limitations has ran on the claims and the amendment does not relate back because the Plaintiff made a legal error instead of a factual error?
2. Are Shahmaleki’s claims against the individual KSU Officials barred by qualified immunity given that their actions with regard to Lee did not violate clearly established law of which they, as reasonable university officials, would have known as no controlling case law holds that in the University setting more due process is required then the “some kind of notice and afforded some kind of hearing” set out in Goss v. Lopez?
3. Does Shahmaleki’s procedural due process claim (Count I), fail to state a plausible claim for relief where under Kansas law, a graduate student lacks a property interest in continued enrollment at the University and in the alternative was sufficient due process provided to the student so that his rights were not violated?
4. Should Shahmaleki’s claim for denial of a liberty interest be dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim for relief under applicable law since nothing said was stigmatizing as a matter of law or disseminated by KSU