361 F. Supp. 3d 597
S.D. Miss.2019Background
- Doe, a University of Mississippi student, was found responsible for sexual misconduct after a December 2, 2016 encounter with Roe; initial expulsion was reduced on appeal to suspension until fall 2020.
- University Title IX Coordinator Honey Ussery investigated, produced a report, and the University Judicial Council adjudicated the matter; Doe alleges the investigation and hearing excluded exculpatory evidence and was biased.
- Doe filed suit raising Title IX claims, § 1983 claims (due process and equal protection), and breach of contract against the State, the University, IHL, IHL Board members and officials, Chancellor Vitter, and University officials Murry and Ussery (official and individual capacities).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), invoking Eleventh Amendment immunity and arguing insufficiency of Doe’s pleadings on Title IX and constitutional claims.
- Court dismissed many official-capacity and state-defendant claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Eleventh Amendment), allowed Title IX claim to proceed against funding recipients as plausible, and allowed certain § 1983 claims for prospective relief against Chancellor Vitter under Ex parte Young.
- Court dismissed individual-capacity breach-of-contract claims against Murry and Ussery (no contract with them) and found Murry and Ussery entitled to qualified immunity on Doe’s individual-capacity § 1983 claims at the pleading stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity for state/agency and official-capacity claims | Doe seeks declaratory/injunctive relief; Ex parte Young allows prospective relief against officials | State and state entities are immune; only officials with connection to relief fall under Ex parte Young | Dismissed § 1983 and contract claims against State and arms of state; Ex parte Young applied only as to Chancellor Vitter (other officials dismissed) |
| Title IX liability for university disciplinary process | Doe alleges gender-bias theories (erroneous outcome, selective enforcement, deliberate indifference) based on investigative and adjudicative deficiencies | Defendants say only the university is a proper Title IX defendant, monetary damages improper, and pleading insufficient for bias | Title IX claim survives at pleading stage as plausible against the defendants Doe identified (discovery permitted) |
| Procedural due process (§ 1983) — adequacy of investigation, panel selection, cross-examination, subpoenas, deliberation, standard of proof | Doe alleges flawed investigation, biased training/materials, undisclosed/biased panelists, no cross-examination, lack of subpoenas, perfunctory deliberation, and preponderance standard | Defendants argue policies were followed sufficiently; cross-examination and subpoenas not constitutionally required; preponderance is standard | Court allowed claims based on investigation, training, biased panel selection, and cross-examination to proceed; rejected subpoena and deliberation claims; kept standard-of-proof issue for later |
| Equal protection (selective treatment) | Doe alleges he was disciplined while Roe was not despite similar conduct; argues male students are treated worse | Defendants say Doe and Roe were not similarly situated (differences in recollection/intoxication) | Claim survives pleading stage — factual similarity is a discovery issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613 (2002) (Eleventh Amendment waiver principles)
- Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (official-capacity suits are suits against the office/state)
- Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (prospective relief exception to Eleventh Amendment)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for legal conclusions)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979) (implied private right under Title IX)
- Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992) (monetary damages available under Title IX)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due-process balancing test)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975) (biased decisionmaker unacceptable under due process)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (cross-examination where important decisions turn on fact)