16 F. Supp. 3d 1275
D. Kan.2014Background
- Robert M. Brown applied to University of Kansas School of Law in April 2009, answered "no" to character & fitness questions about arrests/charges, later amended to disclose multiple DUI and domestic battery matters.
- Brown was admitted, attended fall 2009 and spring 2010 semesters, and continued attending while the School investigated his nondisclosures.
- School officials (Associate Dean Rohleder‑Sook, Dean Agrawal, Associate Dean Mazza) obtained court records, convened an admissions/disciplinary review, and filed an academic‑misconduct complaint charging falsification on the application.
- A Law School hearing panel dismissed the misconduct complaint, but the Dean (Agrawal), after consulting University counsel, notified Brown in late May/early June 2010 that she intended to dismiss him for misrepresentation and then dismissed him effective June 8, 2010; Brown sought university judicial review, which the University Judicial Board declined to hear.
- Brown sued pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (procedural due process — property and liberty), and state claims for gross/wanton negligence, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy against several university officials and the Board of Regents; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The district court found no genuine dispute of material fact, concluded Brown had a property interest but not a liberty interest, held the process provided was adequate, and granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown had a protected property or liberty interest in continued enrollment | Brown asserted a property interest in continued enrollment and a liberty interest in pursuing a lawful calling | Defendants contested a liberty interest (no stigmatizing publication) and argued procedures satisfied due process | Court: Brown had a property interest but no liberty interest (no external publication or falsity shown) |
| Whether the process afforded satisfied procedural due process | Brown argued university failed to follow internal procedures and denied adequate process | Defendants argued notice and opportunity to respond were provided (Dean's detailed letter, chance to submit response) | Court: Process adequate for disciplinary dismissal; no due process violation |
| Qualified immunity / individual liability under § 1983 | Brown sought relief against named officials | Defendants argued liability requires individual actions; Board members had no involvement | Court: Claims against Board members dismissed; court did not reach qualified immunity in depth because no constitutional violation found |
| State tort claims (negligence, tortious interference, conspiracy) | Brown claimed wanton/gross negligence, interference with prospective law career, and conspiracy to deprive rights | Defendants argued lack of duty breach, lack of malice/intent, no unlawful overt acts, and insufficient expectancy/damages | Court: Summary judgment for defendants on all state claims (no wantonness, no tortious interference, no conspiracy) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1975) (public employees/students entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before deprivation of property interest)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (students facing suspension entitled to notice of charges and opportunity to present their side)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property and liberty interests are created by state rules/understandings; entitlement, not expectation)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standards — movant bears initial burden to show lack of evidence)
- Trotter v. Regents of Univ. of N.M., 219 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2000) (academic dismissals require only minimal procedural protections; decisions must be careful and deliberate)
- Riggins v. Goodman, 572 F.3d 1101 (10th Cir. 2009) (discussing due process framework for property/liberty interests)