940 F. Supp. 2d 875
S.D. Ind.2013Background
- Ball State University disciplined two off-campus students, Zimmerman and Sumwalt, under the Conduct Code for alleged harassment and privacy violations connected to a Facebook hoax and a YouTube video.
- The Conduct Code authorizes Ball State to govern conduct ‘wherever the conduct might occur’ if it is unlawful or objectionable and threats the academic community; the OSRCS conducted an investigation and charged both students.
- The students admitted responsibility and faced sanctions including suspension and a year-long disciplinary probation; Sumwalt transferred and completed his degree elsewhere, Zimmerman later reenrolled.
- The students challenged the authority of Ball State to regulate off-campus conduct and alleged First Amendment and due process violations, seeking injunctive relief, record removal, damages, and fees.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims, holding Ball State had authority under Indiana law to regulate the conduct, and that qualified immunity barred individual-capacity monetary claims; injunctive relief was denied as moot by the merits ruling.
- Zimmerman’s emergency injunction motion was rendered moot after a re-enrollment decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ball State had authority to regulate off-campus conduct under Indiana law | Zimmerman and Sumwalt contend off-campus actions fall outside authority | Ball State acted within Indiana Code § 21-39-2-3 to regulate objectionable/off-campus conduct | Ball State authority affirmed; conduct deemed objectionable and within statute |
| Whether the Conduct Code’s application to off-campus conduct violated substantive due process | Regulation off-campus exceeds legislative grant, violating due process | Authority under §21-39-2-3 valid; no due process shock | No substantive due process violation; authority within statutory bounds |
| Whether the Facebook/online conduct and related actions were protected First Amendment speech | Facebook and its postings are protected expressive conduct | Speech tied to deception and harassment; not protected or sufficiently protected | Facebook page postings not protected; even if protected, qualified immunity applies |
| Whether Drs. Gillilan and Hargrave are entitled to qualified immunity for individual-capacity claims | Officials violated constitutional rights, not entitled to immunity | Rights not clearly established; acted within discretion | Qualified immunity applied; no clearly established violation given 2011-2012 context |
| Whether monetary damages against official-capacity defendants are barred by sovereign immunity | Seek equitable relief; not barred | Eleventh Amendment bars monetary damages in official-capacity suits | Monetary damages barred; equitable relief claims defeated on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunn v. Fairfield Community High Sch. Dist. No. 225, 158 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 1998) (substantive due process scrutiny of school discipline; education not a fundamental right)
- Blood v. VH-1 Music First, 668 F.3d 543 (7th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment where alleged conduct is sufficiently objectionable)
- Sonnleitner v. York, 304 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2002) (standard for qualified immunity: clearly established right)
- United States v. Alvarez, 570 U.S. 252 (U.S. 2012) (false speech not categorically unprotected; context matters for protection)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: evidence showing material fact disputes)