Wilson v. Wichita State University
662 F. App'x 626
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Bertram L. Wilson Jr., a long-time Wichita State University library researcher, alleges university officials and campus police ejected him from the library and banned him from campus after his research card expired.
- Wilson claims officers told him he was a concern to library patrons; he alleges repeated removal incidents (March 11 and March 17, 2014), a trespass order, a university letter affirming the ban for safety reasons, and a later police search of his apartment.
- He sued university officials pro se in federal court asserting violations of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments (equal protection and procedural due process claims).
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); the district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the complaint before defendants were served.
- The Tenth Circuit reviews de novo, construes pro se allegations liberally, and reversed the § 1915 dismissal, allowing Wilson an opportunity to amend his procedural-due-process claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection: Did university officials treat Wilson differently in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment? | Wilson alleges arbitrary and discriminatory treatment vs. other patrons. | Actions were rationally related to campus safety; no suspect class or fundamental right invoked. | Court: No viable equal-protection claim; rational-basis review applies and Wilson’s allegations do not overcome presumption of rationality. |
| Procedural due process: Did the university’s refusal to reissue a research card create a protected property interest requiring process? | Wilson contends denial/non-reissuance deprived him of a property interest without due process. | University discretion to control campus access and enforce library rules; removal justified for safety. | Court: Dismissal on this claim would be premature; university policies might create a property interest (analogous to Brown v. Eppler), so amendment could be viable. |
| Propriety of sua sponte § 1915 dismissal without service | Wilson opposed dismissal and appealed. | District court found complaint failed to state a claim and dismissed early. | Court: § 1915 dismissal inappropriate where amendment might cure defects; reversed and remanded. |
| Standard of review for pro se § 1915 dismissals | Wilson’s pleadings should be liberally construed. | District court applied dismissal standard. | Court: Apply Twombly/Iqbal standards but allow amendment unless clearly futile; construe pro se pleadings liberally but not as advocate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir.) (de novo review of § 1915 dismissals)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts raising right to relief above speculative level)
- Perkins v. Kan. Dept. of Corr., 165 F.3d 803 (10th Cir.) (§ 1915 dismissal only when amendment would be futile)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir.) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings, but court not plaintiff’s advocate)
- Teigen v. Renfrow, 511 F.3d 1072 (10th Cir.) (rational-basis standard when no suspect class or fundamental right)
- Copelin-Brown v. N.M. State Pers. Office, 399 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir.) (any conceivable rational basis suffices under rational-basis review)
- Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981) (university discretion to regulate campus activities)
- Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of the U. of Cal., Hastings College of L. v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010) (deference to university administrators in running schools)
- Brown v. Eppler, 725 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir.) (administrative rules that constrain agency discretion can create a property interest requiring due process)