Wilson v. Wichita State University
17-3102
| 10th Cir. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Wilson, a Wichita State University alumnus and long‑time library researcher, was ejected from the campus library on March 11 and March 17, 2014, after his research card had expired; he alleged repeated unsuccessful attempts to get it reissued.
- University police issued a trespass order; university officials later affirmed it citing safety concerns.
- Wilson contacted outside police; Wichita officers later went to his apartment, searched him, and at least one had a gun drawn.
- He sued pro se under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments seeking damages and rescission of the trespass order.
- The district court dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) and later dismissed remaining claims on Eleventh Amendment immunity for official‑capacity defendants and on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds, invoking qualified immunity for individual defendants.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: Wilson waived official‑capacity claims, failed to plausibly plead an equal‑protection theory, and failed to allege facts showing a university policy creating a protected property interest for procedural‑due‑process purposes; qualified immunity therefore applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment / official‑capacity immunity | University and officials can be sued for constitutional violations; seeks relief including rescinding trespass order | University and officials in official capacity are immune under Eleventh Amendment | Wilson did not contest the district court’s Eleventh Amendment ruling on appeal and thus waived official‑capacity claims; immunity stands |
| Equal Protection | Wilson alleged he was treated differently than other patrons and discriminated against | Defendants argued differential treatment does not implicate suspect class or fundamental right; rational‑basis review applies | Claim rejected: Wilson failed to plead membership in a suspect class or violation of a fundamental right; earlier panel decision (Wilson I) affirmed that personnel acted appropriately |
| Procedural Due Process / property interest in research card | Wilson argued the research‑card policy created a property interest and was applied arbitrarily | Defendants argued no policy constrained university discretion and no protected property interest existed | Held: allegations were conclusory and insufficient to show a university policy that created a property interest; due‑process claim fails |
| Qualified Immunity / plausibly pleaded constitutional violation | Wilson argued constitutional rights were clearly established and violated (due process, privacy, liberty) | Defendants argued complaint failed to state violation of clearly established rights; qualified immunity protects them | Held: because Wilson failed to plausibly plead violations of clearly established rights, individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Eppler, 725 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2013) (public entity policy that limits discretionary revocation can create a property interest)
- Mocek v. City of Albuquerque, 813 F.3d 912 (10th Cir. 2015) (court will disregard conclusory allegations and evaluate whether factual allegations plausibly suggest liability)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework explained)
- Wilson v. Wichita State Univ., [citation="662 F. App'x 626"] (10th Cir. 2016) (prior panel opinion remanding to permit amendment of due‑process allegations)