820 F. Supp. 2d 772
S.D. Miss.2011Background
- Chestang was a student at Alcorn State University from fall 2005 to spring 2008; Simpson allegedly advised him and taught a spring 2008 class.
- Chestang alleges Simpson made suggestive comments and a rubbing incident, leading Chestang to transfer universities.
- Chestang filed suit June 10, 2009 in N.D. Illinois; the case was transferred to this court on April 19, 2010.
- Plaintiffs' claims include Title IX and §1983 due process and equal protection, as well as state-law tort claims.
- Simpson moved to dismiss for improper service, Title IX against individuals, MTCA exhaustion, and official capacity immunity.
- Court ultimately dismissed Title IX, due process, and state-law claims; allowed equal protection and addressed §1983 capacity issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service was timely under Rule 4(m). | Chestang for good cause due to notice via waiver requests. | Service timely requirement not met; no good cause. | Court extended time; service deemed timely. |
| Whether Title IX claims can be asserted against an individual defendant. | Chestang asserts Title IX against Simpson personally. | Title IX claims cannot be brought against individuals. | Title IX claims against Simpson dismissed. |
| Whether MTCA notice prerequisite bars state-law claims. | Not stated; MTCA not complied with. | MTCA notice mandatory and jurisdictional. | State-law claims dismissed for MTCA notice failure. |
| Whether §1983 official-capacity claims are actionable. | Chestang sues Simpson in official capacity for deprivation of rights. | §1983 claims do not lie against state officials in official capacity; against the state. | Official-capacity §1983 claims dismissed; treated as against Alcorn State. |
| Whether §1983 individual-capacity claims survive with respect to due process and equal protection; qualified immunity analysis. | Chestang alleges constitutional violations from sexual harassment by Simpson. | Defendant entitled to qualified immunity unless clearly established rights violated. | Substantive due process claim dismissed; equal protection claim survives; qualified immunity not applicable to equal protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must contain plausible claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (pleading must have plausible factual content)
- Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (official-capacity suits against state actors are against the state)
- Millan v. USAA Gen. Indemn. Co., 546 F.3d 321 (5th Cir.2008) (extension of time under Rule 4(m) may be warranted)
- Doe v. Taylor Indep. Sch. Dist., 15 F.3d 443 (5th Cir.1994) (substantive due process considerations in teacher-student context)
- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (harassment rights protected under equal protection principles)
- Southard v. Texas Bd. of Crim. Justice, 114 F.3d 539 (5th Cir.1997) (sexual harassment can violate equal protection)
- Engquist v. Oreg. Dep't of Agric., 553 U.S. 592 (2008) (class-of-one claims limited in public employment context)