Isiah M. Doolen v. Christine Wormuth
5f4th125
| 2d Cir. | 2021Background:
- Isiah M. Doolen, a former West Point cadet, accumulated multiple disciplinary infractions (alcohol violations, excessive demerits, later assault/drug allegations) and faced successive Article 10 and conduct-investigation (CI) proceedings.
- The CI process afforded live hearings, cross-examination, character witnesses, and written submissions; findings of deficiency were reviewed by the Commandant, SJA, Superintendent and, for separation, by a delegated Army Headquarters official; separated cadets face recoupment of education costs ($226,662 here).
- After being found deficient, the Superintendent recommended separation and recoupment; the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army approved separation and ordered repayment in October 2015.
- Doolen sued, alleging (1) West Point’s separation procedures violated due process (he needed a separate live hearing before separation) and (2) West Point violated its own mandatory regulations (e.g., failing to serve the SJA legal review and misapplying the preponderance standard), causing substantial prejudice.
- The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss/for summary judgment; the Second Circuit affirmed, holding the procedures satisfy due process and that the intra-military immunity doctrine renders Doolen’s regulatory claims nonjusticiable because he failed to show substantial prejudice.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial due process challenge to cadet separation procedures | West Point must provide a separate live pre-separation hearing (beyond the CI) before ordering separation and recoupment | The CI (live hearing + evidence), opportunity for written submissions, and post-deprivation review (ABCMR and judicial review) satisfy due process | Procedures satisfy Mathews balancing; no separate pre-separation hearing required |
| Failure to serve SJA legal review to cadet | SJA review included allegations/factual errors Doolen could have rebutted; lack of service prejudiced him | Any SJA statements were characterized as allegations; Superintendent relied on other independent grounds (e.g., failure to disclose); no substantial prejudice | Failure to serve SJA review was error but did not substantially prejudice Doolen; claim fails |
| Alleged misapplication of preponderance standard by the IO | IO Forlenza misapplied or improperly weighed evidence under the preponderance standard | Courts cannot reweigh discretionary military factfinding; this is barred by intra-military immunity | Nonjusticiable; courts will not reassess discretionary military determinations of conduct |
| Scope/justiciability under intra-military immunity (and exhaustion) | Exceptions to immunity permit review here (facial and regulatory-violation exceptions) | Exceptions are narrow; regulatory claims require showing of substantial prejudice; exhaustion is not mandatory here | Court reviewed facial due-process claim (and rejected it); regulatory claims were dismissed for lack of substantial prejudice; exhaustion was not decisive |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (establishes three-factor due-process balancing test)
- Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (U.S. 1983) (courts must afford heightened deference in military affairs)
- Jones v. N.Y. State Div. of Mil. & Naval Affs., 166 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 1999) (describes intra-military immunity and its limits)
- Dibble v. Fenmore, 339 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2003) (explains exception for failures to follow mandatory military regulations requiring substantial prejudice)
- Hagopian v. Knowlton, 470 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1972) (historical requirement that cadets receive adequate opportunity to present defenses at disciplinary hearings)
- Andrews v. Knowlton, 509 F.2d 898 (2d Cir. 1975) (military hearing with notice and opportunity to present witnesses meets procedural due process)
- Rivera-Powell v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Elections, 470 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2006) (combination of pre-deprivation hearing and post-deprivation remedies can satisfy due process)