Doe v. Alger, 228 F. Supp. 3d 713

Background

Doe, a freshman at public James Madison University, paid tuition and was admitted; JMU admits students are entitled to continued enrollment absent failure to pay, academic deficiency, or conduct violations.
Roe alleged nonconsensual sex in August 2014; OSARP charged Doe with Sexual Misconduct and held a December 5 hearing before a three-person board that found Doe "not responsible."
Roe timely appealed; the appeal board reviewed additional evidence (some submitted late and some not provided to Doe before his written response), did not hold live testimony, did not hear Doe in person, and issued a one-line decision "Sanction Increased," imposing suspension through Spring 2020.
JMU President Warner affirmed the appeal board’s decision; Doe was suspended and informed only after the decision; the disciplinary file was later destroyed.
Doe sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivation of a property interest in continued enrollment without procedural due process; defendants are sued in official capacity and moved for summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Doe had a protected property interest in continued enrollment	Doe: admission + payment + longstanding university practice/policies created an enforceable (express or implied-in-fact) contractual entitlement to remain enrolled absent cause	Defendants: no statutory or enforceable contract right; any implied contract is unenforceable against the sovereign or illusory because policies can change	Held: Doe had a protected property interest based on mutual understanding and admissions by JMU (implied-in-fact contract)
Whether JMU provided constitutionally adequate process before depriving Doe of enrollment	Doe: appeal process was effectively a second trial without live testimony, with late evidence not given or insufficiently disclosed, no chance to contest key credibility evidence, and no written reasons for reversal	Defendants: appeal procedures were permitted; Doe could have sought extensions or sought to appear under policy; differences in timing/materials do not amount to constitutional violation	Held: JMU denied Doe due process — lack of notice/opportunity to meaningfully respond, consideration of new evidence without adequate disclosure, no reasons for adverse sanction violated procedural due process
Whether the appeal board’s lack of stated findings or reasoning is constitutionally problematic	Doe: reversal without explanation prevented meaningful review and obscured applicable standards	Defendants: not specifically defended the absence of reasons as constitutional error	Held: absence of reasoning for reversing the hearing board, especially given new evidence and credibility issues, violates due process
Whether University President Alger is a proper official-capacity defendant	Doe: injunctive relief (readmission, expungement) requires university officials as defendants	Defendants: Alger had no role and is unnecessary	Held: Alger is a proper defendant in official capacity for prospective injunctive relief under Ex Parte Young framework

Key Cases Cited

Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property interests are defined by state law, statutes, regulations, or mutual understandings)
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (entitlement can arise from de facto policies or mutual understandings)
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (property interest holders are entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (balancing test for what process is due)
Dixon v. Ala. State Bd. of Educ., 294 F.2d 150 (disciplinary hearings require the rudiments of an adversary proceeding)
Jones v. Bd. of Governors of the Univ. of N.C., 704 F.2d 713 (reversal without stated reasons can warrant relief)
Riccio v. County of Fairfax, 907 F.2d 1459 (procedures in handbooks do not define constitutionally required process)
Tigrett v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 290 F.3d 620 (students facing exclusion are entitled to meaningful hearings)