Slovinec v. Georgetown University, 268 F. Supp. 3d 55

Plaintiff Joseph Slovinec, proceeding pro se, sued Georgetown University under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging due-process violations arising from a June 26, 2014 IDEAA report and a campus police barring order.
Slovinec had completed a short Project Management certificate through a DC Workforce Investment Act (WIA) program in 2011; he repeatedly sought financial and career assistance from Georgetown staff after program completion but the University does not provide such aid for non-credit certificate students.
After persistently appearing uninvited at campus events, applying to many Georgetown jobs, and exhibiting allegedly disruptive behavior, campus police issued a two-year barring order in March 2014.
Slovinec filed complaints with Georgetown’s Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity and Affirmative Action (IDEAA), which investigated and found no policy violations as to the barring order and deemed retaliation claims untimely and unsupported.
Georgetown moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and for noncompliance with Rule 8; the court considered IDEAA’s Findings incorporated into the complaint.
The court granted Georgetown’s motion, holding Slovinec failed to identify a protected liberty or property interest, received sufficient process via IDEAA’s post-deprivation review, and could not state a substantive due process claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Georgetown acted under color of state law so § 1983 applies	Slovinec treats University and its police as state actors subject to § 1983	Georgetown argued its actions were not fairly attributable to the State and relied on private-university status and limits of any quasi-state functions	Court assumed arguendo state action only as to barring order but found other defects fatal; conduct like refusing job help is not state action under Lugar
Whether Plaintiff was deprived of a protected liberty or property interest without due process	Slovinec claimed the barring order deprived him of liberty (access to campus) and lacked adequate process	Georgetown showed IDEAA’s investigation and campus police reports provided notice and an opportunity to be heard; post-deprivation review was adequate	Court held Slovinec failed to identify a protected interest and, even assuming one, he received constitutionally adequate process (prompt post-deprivation review)
Whether alleged conduct supports a substantive due process claim	Slovinec alleged general unfairness and retaliation amounting to substantive violation	Georgetown argued facts do not show egregious or arbitrary government misconduct required for substantive due process	Court held allegations insufficient for substantive due process; not the sort of ‘‘egregious’’ state action required

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual content plausibly showing liability)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must raise claim above speculative level)
Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 for unconstitutional policy or custom)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (procedural due process requires balancing interests and meaningful hearing)
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (tests for when private conduct is fairly attributable to the state)
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) (private action may implicate the Constitution when sustained by state enforcement)