175 F. Supp. 3d 646
W.D. Va.2016Background
- Doe, a freshman at James Madison University (public), was charged with sexual misconduct after sexual encounters with Roe; a December hearing board found Doe not responsible following live testimony and evidence.
- Roe appealed, submitting new evidence and statements; Doe was informed of the appeal but was not permitted to appear before the three-member appeal board and had limited opportunity to review or respond to new materials.
- The appeal board reversed the hearing board in January 2015 and suspended Doe through spring 2020; JMU officials (Warner affirmed; Alger refused to overturn) communicated the suspension widely and barred Doe from campus.
- Doe sued Warner and Alger (official capacities) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of a property interest in continued enrollment and a liberty interest in reputation without procedural due process; he sought readmission and expungement.
- The district court evaluated whether Doe adequately alleged a protected property or liberty interest and whether the process was constitutionally inadequate; it concluded Doe adequately pleaded a property-interest due-process claim but not a liberty-interest claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doe has a constitutionally protected property interest in continued enrollment | JMU’s policies/practices and Student Rights policy created enforceable entitlement to remain enrolled absent cause | No enforceable property right; alleged practices and policies do not create a legitimate claim of entitlement | Held: Allegations sufficient at pleading stage to state a property interest (Perry/Perry-style de facto entitlement approach) |
| Whether Doe has a constitutionally protected liberty interest (reputation) | Finding of sexual misconduct and its inclusion in his record stigmatizes him and will foreclose educational/employment opportunities | Reputation injury alone is insufficient; must show stigma-plus (reputation injury plus alteration/extinguishment of legal status) | Held: Not alleged sufficiently — plaintiff fails stigma-plus; liberty-interest claim dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether JMU provided constitutionally adequate process before suspending Doe | Process at hearing was adequate; appeal stage repeated fact-finding without notice, denied attendance, limited response to new evidence — so process was inadequate | JMU provided process under its procedures; appeal was internal review and therefore adequate | Held: At pleading stage, Doe adequately alleges the appeal-stage process was constitutionally inadequate as to property interest (notice, opportunity to be heard deficiencies) |
| Availability of relief against university decisionmakers under § 1983 | Entitlement to injunctive/declaratory relief to be readmitted and expunge record due to deprivation without due process | Defendants argue failure to state a protected interest or deprivation defeats § 1983 claim | Held: Property-based procedural due process claim survives pleading stage; relief remains plausible on that claim; liberty-based claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (students have entitlement to education under state law and are entitled to due process before suspension)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interests are created by independent sources such as statutes, rules, or understandings)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (governmental defamation alone does not establish a liberty interest; requires stigma-plus)
- Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971) (recognition that government action stigmatizing reputation can trigger due process when combined with alteration of legal status)
- Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972) (de facto entitlements created by institutional policies/practices may support property interests)
- Tigrett v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 290 F.3d 620 (4th Cir. 2002) (meaningful hearing standard for university disciplinary proceedings)
- Shirvinski v. U.S. Coast Guard, 673 F.3d 308 (4th Cir. 2012) (applying stigma-plus and discussing limits of reputation-based liberty claims)
- Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980) (liberty interest recognized where state statute altered status by involuntary transfer to mental hospital)