In the decision Soliz v. Alamo Colleges District, issued by Judge David Ezra of the Western District of Texas on September 16, the court addressed disputes arising from a classroom incident involving a student and a faculty member at St. Philip’s College, a component institution within the Alamo Community Colleges District system. The plaintiff, Joseph Soliz, who proceeded without counsel, was enrolled in a course taught by Roy Ruiz, who is named as a defendant in this matter.
The events began on January 17, 2024, when Soliz and Ruiz clashed during a class session. Soliz was completing a laboratory task related to electrical circuits, during which his digital multimeter issued an alarm at least once. Ruiz approached to assist, and Soliz stated that he would “get it figured out.” Ruiz repeatedly explained that Soliz was not following directives. Soliz persisted in doing things his own way and asked Ruiz not to “micromanage” him. In the course of the exchange, Ruiz removed Soliz’s laboratory papers, which Soliz retrieved, refusing to surrender them. Ruiz threatened to summon campus police and instead contacted Elizabeth Leon, a staff member at St. Philip’s. Ms. Leon attempted to mediate the situation, but Soliz refused to cooperate and told her that “the conversation was over.”
The following morning, Ruiz sent Soliz an email advising him to stay away from class that day. Ruiz claimed in the communication that Soliz had been unduly combative, had misused equipment creating a safety risk, and had refused to follow instructions and disrupted the class. Regardless, Soliz attended class. Ruiz confronted him and warned that, if Soliz refused to leave, campus police would be called. Soliz declined to depart, and Ruiz proceeded as he had indicated.
Campus police arrived, escorted Soliz to the “temporary campus police offices,” and showed him the email Ruiz had sent earlier that day, establishing the grounds for Soliz’s removal from class. Administrators from the college also stopped by to discuss the matter outside the office. Soliz, having overheard the conversation, left the temporary offices and entered the hallway. He had a brief discussion with campus administrators, who indicated that a student-conduct meeting would be scheduled for Monday, January 22, 2024. They subsequently issued Soliz an invitation to a Zoom meeting set for January 19, 2024. Soliz states that he did not attend the Zoom meeting because the notice was too brief to allow him to obtain legal counsel or prepare a defense. As a consequence of the classroom dispute, Soliz asserts that he was barred from both of Ruiz’s classes until he could receive additional safety instruction.
Soliz filed suit asserting several theories of recovery, all of which the court rejected in line with Magistrate Judge Richard Farrer’s report and recommendation. The following section, drawn from the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, addresses the First Amendment claim (for discussion of the Fourth Amendment and Due Process Clause claims, see the opinion):
Soliz fails to identify any constitutionally protected activity that would support a retaliation claim under the First Amendment. He merely claims to have engaged in “protected academic inquiry,” which is a legal conclusion rather than a factual assertion, and the facts he pleaded indicate a dispute over how an instructor managed his failure to follow directions and enforcement of basic classroom rules.
His objections to the procedures used in a laboratory assignment do not amount to protected speech, and the authorities he cites largely concern defending the right to express differing viewpoints or engage in intellectual debate within a school setting. The pleadings do not point to a specific statement or piece of protected speech as the subject of the dispute.
One possible reference is to an “objection to the use of religious symbols during class instruction” at some earlier, unspecified time; however, the pleadings clarify that the conduct at issue arises from the immediate altercation between Soliz and Ruiz over classroom disruptions and noncompliance with instructions, not as retaliation for those objections. Accordingly, Ruiz’s actions were not primarily motivated by the vague earlier objection or any other statement or activity. The same reasoning defeats any First Amendment retaliation claim against the police-officer defendants or other government actors. Ultimately, the First Amendment retaliation claim is vague and conclusory as pleaded and fails as a matter of law.
Furthermore, the facts Soliz pleaded show that his dispute with Ruiz disrupted the class. It is well established that “conduct by the student, in or out of the classroom, which for any reason—whether it concerns time, location, or type of behavior—materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or infringement 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 thus undermine any First Amendment claim on this basis 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….”).
In light of Soliz’s own pleaded facts, he repeatedly refused to follow Ruiz’s directives during a laboratory exercise involving electrical circuitry. At one point, Soliz triggered an alarm on a circuit. He resisted Ruiz’s instructions on two occasions, even after reminders. Ruiz ultimately sought assistance from Elizabeth Leon, who then spoke with Soliz. Soliz remained uncooperative throughout the proceedings. When asked not to return to class the next day, he complied with the instruction to attend—though the episode necessitated involvement by campus police, culminating in the cancellation of the class. For this reason as well, Soliz’s First Amendment claim fails as a matter of law.
Gunnar Peterson Seaquist and Sara Labashosky (Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP) represent defendants.
