Garrett Collick v. William Paterson University
699 F. App'x 129
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Jane Doe reported that students Garrett Collick and Noah Williams sexually assaulted her; WPU Police Detective Sergeant Ellen DeSimone obtained arrest warrants based on that report.
- A grand jury declined to indict Collick and Williams, but William Paterson University expelled them following campus disciplinary proceedings.
- Plaintiffs sued in state court asserting Title IX, § 1983 claims (Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendments), New Jersey statutory and constitutional claims, and common-law and contract claims; defendants removed to federal court.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting qualified immunity for DeSimone (false arrest/ Fourth Amendment) and for various defendants on procedural due process and equal protection claims.
- The District Court denied qualified immunity for the Fourth Amendment claim (finding factual development required to assess objective reasonableness) and did not rule on procedural due process qualified immunity.
- The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity re: the Fourth Amendment without prejudice (discovery may show reasonableness) and remanded the procedural due process qualified immunity issue as premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for DeSimone on Fourth Amendment (false arrest/warrant) | DeSimone omitted or recklessly misrepresented material facts in warrant application; plaintiffs entitled to adjudicate § 1983 claim | DeSimone entitled to qualified immunity because her actions were objectively reasonable and complaint insufficient to show a clearly established violation | Denied without prejudice — factual record required to decide objective reasonableness and material omissions |
| Qualified immunity on procedural due process claim (expulsion) | Plaintiffs need not plead facts to defeat qualified immunity; defendants bear burden to establish immunity | Defendants contend plaintiffs omitted facts that would defeat procedural due process claim and justify immunity at dismissal stage | Remanded to District Court; motion was premature and defendants must raise affirmative defense later with factual support |
| Use of pleadings to rebut qualified immunity at motion to dismiss | Plaintiffs argue they need not anticipate immunity defenses in the complaint | Defendants attempted to rebut/supplement complaint facts to establish immunity | Court held defendants cannot properly obtain qualified immunity by supplementing the complaint at this stage |
| Whether executing officers relying on warrants have immunity | Plaintiffs didn't allege separate officers only executed warrants | Defendants implied warrant reliance might shield executing officers | Not decided — court declined to rule because no defendant alleged to be only a warrant executor |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781 (3d Cir.) (false arrest liability and standards for warrant-based § 1983 claims)
- Paff v. Kaltenbach, 204 F.3d 425 (3d Cir.) (qualified immunity and false arrest doctrine)
- Showers v. Spangler, 182 F.3d 165 (3d Cir.) (probable cause and warrant issues in § 1983 suits)
- United States v. Myers, 308 F.3d 251 (3d Cir.) (objective reasonableness and probable cause principles)
- Sherwood v. Mulvihill, 113 F.3d 396 (3d Cir.) (materiality of omissions/statements to probable cause in warrant applications)
- Thomas v. Indep. Twp., 463 F.3d 285 (3d Cir.) (pleading and procedural guidance on qualified immunity; burden of defendants)
- Reedy v. Evanson, 615 F.3d 197 (3d Cir.) (allocation of burden for qualified immunity at summary judgment)