Anderson v. Trs. of Dartmouth Coll.

2020 DNH 210

Mark Anderson, Plaintiff v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, Defendant

Case No. 19-cv-109-SM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

December 4, 2020

ORDER

Mark Anderson, plaintiff, was expelled from Dartmouth College. Proceeding pro se, he asserts claims arising from the College's disciplinary process. Dartmouth has moved for summary judgment on all of Anderson's claims against it. For the reasons given, the College's motion is granted.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court is "obliged to review the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and to draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party's favor." Block Island Fishing, Inc. v. Rogers, 844 F.3d 358, 360 (1st Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record reveals "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In this context, a factual dispute "is 'genuine' if the evidence of record permits a rational factfinder to resolve it in favor of either party, and 'material' if its existence or nonexistence has the potential to change the outcome of the suit." Rando v. Leonard, 826 F.3d 553, 556 (1st Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Consequently, "[a]s to issues on which the party opposing summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, that party may not simply rely on the absence of evidence but, rather, must point to definite and competent evidence showing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact." Perez v. Lorraine Enters., 769 F.3d 23, 29-30 (1st Cir. 2014). In other words, "a laundry list of possibilities and hypotheticals" and "[s]peculation about mere possibilities, without more, is not enough to stave off summary judgment." Tobin v. Fed. Express Corp., 775 F.3d 448, 451-52 (1st Cir. 2014). See generally Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).

BACKGROUND

Anderson challenges Dartmouth's application of its disciplinary rules and processes on several grounds. A review of that system, as described in Dartmouth's Student Handbook, follows.

1. Dartmouth's Disciplinary System

Dartmouth's Student Handbook defines "Standards of Conduct" for the Dartmouth community, standards "which govern the behavior and activities of individual students and student organizations on or off campus." Def.'s Mot. for Summary Judgment, Exh. ("Def.'s Exh.") 1 at 2. The Handbook identifies nine standards, but Standards II and VI are the only ones relevant to this case. Standard II prohibits students from engaging in "behavior that threatens . . . the safety and security of others." Def.'s Exh. 1 at 3. Under Standard VI, students "are subject to disciplinary action for violation of the laws of any jurisdiction, whether local, state, federal or foreign." Id. at 6.

The Handbook describes the operation of, and procedures to be followed by the undergraduate disciplinary system. Dartmouth College's Trustees exercise "ultimate authority for the structure and operation of the undergraduate disciplinary system at the College." Def.'s Exh. 1 at 10. The Trustees have delegated their authority to the Vice Provost for Student Affairs and the Committee on Standards (COS), which are charged with promulgating, revising and enforcing "rules concerning the disciplinary system as it relates to undergraduates." Def.'sExh. 1 at 10. The Committee on Standards is tasked with hearing cases involving violations of the Standards of Conduct.

The COS is generally comprised of 12 faculty members, 12 undergraduate students, and 8 members selected by the college's president. COS panels, designated to hear a specific case, consist of two faculty COS members, two student COS members, and one of the administrative members of the COS selected by the president, as well as the hearing Chair, who does not vote, and is a member of the College's Office of Judicial Affairs.

A. Office of Judicial Affairs

Dartmouth's Office of Judicial Affairs is responsible for "receiving all complaints and issuing allegations." Id. at 12. The Handbook reads:

[T]he JAO may conduct an investigation and initiate an allegation on the basis of information coming to its attention from any source. The JAO shall determine whether complaints or other information concerning a student shall result in formal disciplinary allegations. The JAO shall coordinate the investigation and disposition of complaints and shall call upon other members of the College community for assistance as necessary.

Id. at 12.

If the JAO determines that formal disciplinary allegations are necessary, and those allegations could potentially result in suspension or separation if the student is found responsible,the Director of Judicial Affairs must "inform the student in writing and provide the student with copies of the available information related to the allegations." Id. at 13.

Within five days of written notice of the allegations, the student is allowed an "opportunity to admit or deny the allegation." Id. If the student denies the allegations, or the facts in question, the case is referred to the COS for a hearing.

The Handbook states that COS hearings "are administrative in nature and [] not governed by the rights and rules that apply in a court of law." Def.'s Exh. 1, at 15. However, "[t]he disciplinary system does provide . . . student[s] with certain rights and obligations," as delineated in the Handbook. Id. at 15. Students appearing before the COS "are expected to be familiar with [its] rules and procedures." Id. at 15.

B. "Rights and Obligations" Under the Handbook

Among the rights the Handbook provides students are "reasonable written notice of the substance of the allegation(s) against them," and a "reasonable period of time in which to prepare for a hearing." Id. at 16. The Handbook provides: "[h]earings will be scheduled as soon as possible after an incident," and a "student who needs additional time to prepare for a hearing may request, in writing, an extension of time."Id. The COS Chair is responsible for scheduling hearings, and making decisions with respect to requests for delay or rescheduling.¹

The Handbook gives students the right to have a faculty advisor of their choosing present at the hearing. The advisor's main role is to "assist the student in reviewing and understanding the procedures related to the hearing and to assist the student in obtaining answers to questions about the hearing." Id. at 15. According to the Handbook, "an advisor might appropriately help a student anticipate questions and issues likely to arise at a hearing, and while an advisor might provide feedback about the effectiveness of a student's written or oral presentation of the facts, the advisor does not function in the way an attorney would in a criminal or civil proceeding." Id. at 16.

The JOA is charged with providing COS with "all relevant material relating to cases which come before it," material that the college calls the "case packet." Id. at 14; Def.'s Exh. 40 at 13:6-14:1. The non-voting Chair of the COS panel is vested with authority over all "procedural rulings, including rulings on relevance and admissibility of material" within the case packet. Id. at 17. Before the hearing, both the student and the COS hearing panel are provided with copies of the case packet.

C. COS Hearings

COS hearings are "informal," and are intended "to provide the student with an opportunity to be heard and to provide the COS relevant information on which to base a decision." Def.'s Exh. 1 at 19. Pursuant to the Handbook:

Formal rules of evidence and courtroom procedures are inapplicable. The COS may hear and consider any information it considers to be trustworthy and to have probative value. . . . [T]he Chair is empowered to make all procedural rulings, including rulings on relevance and admissibility of information.

Id. Students may request witnesses, present information and argument, and make opening and closing statements. Id. at 17.

COS decisions require a majority vote, and, for the COS to conclude that a student has violated a Standard, "the COS must be persuaded that a preponderance of the evidence supports sucha finding," that is, that it is "more likely than not" the student committed the alleged violation. Id. at 20. After the COS reaches a decision, the Chair drafts a "case note," summarizing the decision and its rationale. Students are promptly notified of the COS's decision. Id. at 20.

D. Requests for Review

Requests for review of COS decisions are received by the Vice Provost for Student Affairs, the Dean of the College, or a designee. Id. at 11. Requests may be made on the following grounds:

1. Procedural error which has materially prejudiced the student's case;

2. Newly discovered information which, had it been available at the time of the hearing, would likely have affected the outcome either with regard to a finding of responsibility or with regard to the sanction imposed (if the information was not reasonably available to the student at the time of the proceeding).

Id. at 21. Sole discretion for the decision as to whether those grounds for review have been met is vested with the reviewing officer. Id. Upon review, "the original decision may be upheld, the imposed sanction adjusted as the reviewing officer deems appropriate, or referred back to the hearing officer or the COS panel that originally heard the case for further consideration." Id. at 21.

2. Mark Anderson and the Disciplinary Process

In January, 2017, while Anderson was in his junior year at Dartmouth, his girlfriend of approximately four years broke up with him. Angry and upset, plaintiff sent his former girlfriend and her family members several inappropriate and threatening communications over the next few months. On March 29, 2017, Anderson's former girlfriend (who, at the time, was a student at a college in another state) obtained a protective order from a state court close to where she...