John Doe, I v. Daniel Cummins, 662 F. App'x 437

Background

Two male University of Cincinnati students (Doe I and Doe II) were accused of sexual assault in 2014, found "responsible" by the university’s Administrative Review Committee (ARC), and received discipline (three-year suspension for Doe I; probation and requirements for Doe II). Both appealed, each was granted a new hearing, and adverse findings were ultimately affirmed on appeal by the university.
Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of Fourteenth Amendment due process (procedural defects, biased investigation/panel, limited cross-examination, counsel participation, burden of proof allocation) and asserted Title IX gender-discrimination claims against the university.
The district court dismissed all claims; the Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo and addressed Eleventh Amendment issues, due-process (Mathews balancing), and Title IX (Yusuf framework).
The Sixth Circuit held Eleventh Amendment did not bar prospective injunctive/declaratory relief against state officials and allowed such claims to proceed in theory, but affirmed dismissal on the merits.
On due process, the court concluded plaintiffs received constitutionally sufficient process (notice, opportunity to present their case, modified cross-examination, appeals remedy) and that initial hearing defects were remedied by new hearings; alleged systemic bias and other procedural complaints did not establish a constitutional violation.
On Title IX, plaintiffs failed to plead particularized facts linking outcomes to gender bias (no statements, patterns, or governmental pressure alleged); statistical and procedural allegations were insufficient to infer sex discrimination under the erroneous-outcome standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eleventh Amendment — availability of prospective equitable/declaratory relief	Plaintiffs sought injunction/declaratory relief against officials to remove disciplinary notations and prevent enforcement	Defendants argued Eleventh Amendment bars such relief against state officials	Court: Eleventh Amendment does not bar prospective injunctive relief or declaratory relief ancillary to prospective relief (Ex parte Young line applies)
Due process — adequacy of disciplinary procedures	Plaintiffs alleged biased investigations, admission of hearsay, pre-adjudication victim-impact statements, limited cross-examination, advisor cant participate, improper burden allocation, biased panel	Defendants: plaintiffs received notice, explanation of evidence, meaningful chance to present, modified cross-examination, appeals remedied errors; full adversarial protections not required	Court: Procedures met Mathews balancing — notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard; initial defects cured by rehearings; no proof of bias so no due-process violation
Biased decisionmaker/systemic bias	Plaintiffs alleged investigatory/panel bias due to Title IX pressure, biased training, and panel record of findings favoring complainants	Defendants: allegations are conclusory; accommodations mandated by regulation; appeals and mixed outcomes show lack of systemic bias	Court: Presumption of impartiality stands; plaintiffs failed to allege actual bias or facts showing panel partiality; claims insufficient
Title IX — erroneous-outcome selective-enforcement	Plaintiffs argued outcomes resulted from sex bias (policy pressure, procedures disadvantaging males, statistics showing male respondents always found responsible)	Defendants: no particularized facts linking decisions to gender; accommodations are neutral and regulatory; statistics and procedural flaws alone do not show sex bias	Court: Under Yusuf, plaintiffs failed to plead articulable doubt about accuracy plus a particularized causal link to gender; Title IX claims dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (balancing test to determine required process)
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (student disciplinary proceedings require notice and opportunity to be heard)
Flaim v. Med. Coll. of Ohio, 418 F.3d 629 (Sixth Circuit on due process in campus disciplinary hearings)
Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (requirement of impartial decisionmaker)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (exception to Eleventh Amendment for prospective relief)
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (limits on retroactive equitable relief under the Eleventh Amendment)
Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (Second Circuit framework for Title IX "erroneous outcome" and "selective enforcement" claims)