Elansari v. United States, 3:15-cv-01461

Plaintiff Amro Elansari, a former Penn State Dickinson School of Law student, alleged discriminatory treatment based on his recreational/medicinal marijuana use to treat chronic back pain.
In January 2015 PSL suspended Elansari for two years; he alleges PSL later converted that suspension into an indefinite ban from entering Penn State properties.
Elansari filed a pro se amended § 1983 complaint asserting: a class-of-one equal protection claim, substantive due process claim, and procedural due process claim (challenge to two-year suspension and to alleged indefinite ban).
The court limited amendment to those three claims against the sole remaining defendant, PSL; Elansari attempted to add ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and PHRA claims, which the court disallowed as beyond scope.
Magistrate Judge Schwab recommended: dismiss equal protection and substantive due process claims with prejudice; dismiss procedural due process as to the two-year suspension; allow procedural due process claim to proceed regarding the alleged indefinite ban; deny leave to further amend as futile.
District Judge Mannion adopted Judge Schwab’s Report and Recommendation in full, granting PSL’s motion in part and denying in part consistent with the recommendations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Class-of-one equal protection	Elansari says PSL treated him differently than other students regarding marijuana-related discipline	PSL contends comparators are not similarly situated and thus no equal protection violation	Dismissed with prejudice — comparators not similarly situated
Substantive due process	Elansari contends loss of enrollment/academic status implicates substantive due process	PSL argues continued enrollment in a graduate academic program is not a protected property interest under substantive due process	Dismissed with prejudice — no substantive due process interest in continued graduate enrollment
Procedural due process — two-year suspension	Elansari challenges adequacy of process afforded for the two-year suspension	PSL defends the disciplinary process and argues no violation as to the suspension	Dismissed with prejudice — procedural challenge to the two-year suspension fails
Procedural due process — alleged indefinite ban	Elansari alleges PSL converted suspension into an indefinite ban without due process	PSL disputes the characterization/adequacy of process but did not obtain dismissal on this point	Allowed to proceed — procedural due process claim regarding the indefinite ban survives

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) pleadings)
Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (pleading standards — labels and conclusions insufficient)
Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744 (burden on movant in Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (scope of district court review of magistrate recommendations)
Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F. Supp. 2d 496 (district court may rely on magistrate's recommendation at its discretion)
Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229 (leave to amend denied only for bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility)