Seattle Attorneys Blog
The Fifth Circuit recently considered a case in which a university student alleged the university violated his constitutional rights and Title IX with regard to an arrest, search, and the resulting disciplinary proceedings against him.
According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff had been a student at a public university in Mississippi. He drove to campus to go to class with woman who was considering going to the university. The two started arguing and the woman alleged the plaintiff physically removed her from the vehicle “very violently.”
A campus police officer arrested the plaintiff and found a handgun when he searched the plaintiff’s backpack.
The university charged the plaintiff with violating its conduct rules prohibiting possessing firearms on campus and violating state law.
After a hearing of the student conduct committee, the committed found the plaintiff had violated policy and he was suspended for two years. The appeals committee upheld the suspension.
The plaintiff filed suit against the university and the officer under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Title IX, and various state laws. He voluntary dismissed this first lawsuit, but subsequently filed another. He added several university officials. He alleged the arrest and search were illegal. He also alleged the university’s disciplinary process violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.
The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and the defendant’s moved to dismiss. The defendants also asserted qualified immunity. The court dismissed the federal claims based on sovereign immunity and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants for the other claims.
The plaintiff appealed.
Government officials are generally protected from personal liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity unless their actions violate a clearly established constitutional right. When a defendant raises qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show they violated a clearly established right.
The plaintiff argued there was no probable cause for the arrest. The Fifth Circuit concluded the alleged victim’s sworn statement to the officer that the plaintiff assaulted her constituted probable cause for the arrest.
He also argued the court erred in dismissing his Fourth Amendment claim with respect to the search. The Fifth Circuit concluded, however, that the search had been a lawful search incident to his arrest.
The plaintiff argued his due process rights were violated because the university’s disciplinary procedure did not allow him to present evidence, review the evidence against him, cross-examine witnesses, or present opening and closing statements.
The Fifth Circuit has held that a student’s due process rights in disciplinary proceedings are notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence, and an opportunity to present their side. Generally, the student does not necessarily have the right to an attorney, to cross-examine witnesses, or to call their own witnesses. Willis v. Texas Tech Univ. Health Scis. Ctr.
The Fifth Circuit noted the plaintiff had been informed of the charges. He knew the evidence against him. He argued he did not have an opportunity to explain he did not know there was a gun in his backpack, but the Fifth Circuit stated he had the opportunity but decided not to offer that explanation. The plaintiff argued the university did not provide him with exculpatory evidence, but the district court concluded the evidence he was referencing did not have probative value.
It is important to note that, although the plaintiff allegedly assaulted his female companion, the university charged him with violating its general conduct policies. Because he was not charged under Title IX, he was not entitled to the procedural protections in the Title IX regulations. The Fifth Circuit did not address the plaintiff’s own Title IX claim against the university.
The plaintiff also appealed the court’s denial of his motion for injunctive relief to reinstate him, let him participate in graduation, and prevent the defendants from violating his rights to due process.
To be granted a motion for injunctive relief, the party must show there is a substantial likelihood they will succeed on the merits; there is a substantial threat of irreparable harm; the potential injury to them outweighs the damage to the defendant; and granting the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Nichols v. Alcatel USA, Inc.
The court determined there was not a substantial likelihood the plaintiff would succeed on the merits. The Fifth Circuit found no abuse of discretion because the plaintiff’s due process claim would not succeed.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.
In this case, the university did not bring disciplinary proceedings against the student under Title IX, so he was not entitled to the procedural protections provided in the Title IX regulations. If you are facing disciplinary action at your school, you need a knowledgeable Washington Title IX and school discipline defense attorney to help you protect your rights. At Blair & Kim, PLLC, we also have an experienced criminal defense attorney who can assist in related criminal matters. Set up a consultation by calling our offices at (206) 622-6562.