Haughwout v. Tordenti

Austin Haughwout v. Laura Tordenti et al

No. CV166032526

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Britain, New Britain

November 17, 2016

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Joseph M. Shortall, Judge

Austin Haughwout was expelled from Central Connecticut State University (Central) effective October 19, 2015. By way of this lawsuit he seeks reinstatement. His claims are essentially four in number. First, the disciplinary procedures employed by Central deprived him of his right to due process of law under the state and federal Constitutions. Second, those same procedures failed to conform to Central's Student Code of Conduct and Statement of Disciplinary Procedures (code). Third, in violating Mr Haughwout's constitutional rights and his rights under the code Central breached a contract that existed between it and Mr. Haughwout by virtue of his status as a tuition-paying student. Finally, the charges that led to Mr. Haughwout's expulsion punished the exercise of his right of free speech thereby violating Article I of the Connecticut Constitution.

The amended complaint is in five counts and seeks a permanent injunction and/or a writ of mandamus restoring Mr. Haughwout to his status as a full-time student at Central ^[1] a declaratory ruling that the defendants' conduct in expelling him was unconstitutional, and attorneys fees pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § § 1983 & 1998, for the defendants' alleged violations of his constitutional rights.

I

The original complaint was returned to court on March 7, 2016. Initial skirmishes ensued over the court's jurisdiction over counts four and five and Mr. Haughwout's request for a temporary injunction or writ of mandamus restoring him as a student at Central pending a final resolution of the case. The court heard argument on these issues on May 24, 2016.

The defendants moved to dismiss counts four and five, which alleged Central's breach of an implied contract between it and Mr. Haughwout and a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implicit in every contract. As originally drafted, those counts sought monetary damages from the defendants, all of them state officials, and, thus, from the state. Because consent to sue the state had not been obtained from the claims commissioner, those monetary claims had to be and were dismissed. See Docket entry #104.01. The court found, however, that, insofar as they sought equitable relief, those counts were not subject to dismissal. By incorporating from counts one and three allegations that Mr. Haughwout's constitutional rights had been violated, counts four and five " clearly demonstrated an incursion upon constitutionally protected interests. Barde v. Board of Trustees, 207 Conn. 59, 64, 539 A.2d 1000 (1988)." Id.

The court denied Mr. Haughwout's request for a temporary injunction or writ of mandamus. It concluded that, while his claims were not frivolous, it could not say that there was a " reasonable probability" that he would ultimately be successful, the recognized test for the issuance of a temporary injunction. See Docket entry #101.01.

In their memorandum in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction (objection) the defendants presented their arguments against not only the temporary relief sought by Mr. Haughwout but also against any relief at all on any of the counts in his complaint. See Docket entry #108. They appended:

1. an affidavit from defendant Christopher Dukes, the director of Central's office of student conduct, setting forth his actions in investigating and pursuing charges of violating the code against Mr. Haughwout;

2. a copy of the " notice of charges and disciplinary hearing" (written notice) provided to Mr. Haughwout by Mr. Dukes;

3. a complete transcript of the disciplinary hearing held on October 14, 2015;

4. copies of two " case/incident reports" prepared by Central's police department (campus police) relating to the charges against Mr. Haughwout, in which the names of the students interviewed were redacted;

5. a copy of Mr. Dukes' letter to Mr. Haughwout informing him of the outcome of the disciplinary hearing;

6. copies of letters from and to Mr. Haughwout during his appeal from the decision of the disciplinary panel, including a letter from defendant Ramon Hernandez, Central's associate dean for student affairs, informing Mr. Haughwout that, as the person designated to consider his appeal, Mr. Hernandez had upheld the decision of the disciplinary panel (panel) and the sanction of expulsion that followed upon that decision.

In response to the defendants' objection Mr. Haughwout, too, rehearsed all the arguments in favor of his claims for permanent injunctive relief and/or a writ of mandamus restoring him as a full-time student at Central. See Docket entry #111.

An amended complaint was filed on June 23, 2016. The defendants filed an answer and special defenses on July 14. The pleadings were closed as of July 21, when a reply to the special defenses was filed. On that date the plaintiff also filed a claim for a trial to the court.

On August 8, 2016, having reviewed the parties' filings on the legal and factual issues raised by the plaintiff's claims and the defendants' objection, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing. The hearing was directed at three factual issues that had not been adequately addressed in the parties' respective filings:

1. the specific content of a " brief, but detailed telephone conversation" between Mr. Dukes and Mr. Haughwout prior to the disciplinary hearing, referred to in Mr. Dukes' affidavit, in which Mr. Dukes claimed he had orally explained to Mr. Haughwout the basis of the disciplinary charges against him and sought his response;

2. whether, prior to the hearing, Mr. Haughwout had obtained copies of the police reports relating to the investigation, and whether the names of the students interviewed by the campus police had been redacted from those reports;

3. whether, at the hearing, the students who had been interviewed by the campus police or by Mr. Dukes in the course of his investigation were identified by name.

Mr. Dukes, Mr. Haughwout and Mr. Haughwout's father Bret Haughwout testified at that hearing. In addition, the parties stipulated through counsel to the answers to the second and third questions. It was stipulated that, about fifteen minutes prior to the hearing, Mr. Haughwout was provided a number of documents in response to a freedom of information request he had filed, that he chose some of them for copying and among those chosen for copying were a campus police report dated September 21, 2015 and an application for an arrest warrant submitted by the campus police to the state's attorney's office for the New Britain Judicial District; in these documents the names of the students had been redacted.^[2] It was also stipulated that, at the hearing, three of the four student-witnesses were identified by their full names and one was identified only by his first name, Central not having his permission to disclose his full name.

Prompted by the plaintiff's claim for a court trial filed on July 21, 2016, the court conducted an on-the-record status conference on October 3, 2016 to determine the parties' views whether such a trial would be necessary; if so, the factual issues to be addressed at the trial, and to schedule such a trial. The parties informed the court that they were in agreement that the court could proceed to decide the case based on the arguments they had advanced in their previous filings and in oral argument on May 24 and the evidence it had heard on August 8.

Therefore, the following facts, upon which the court's decision rests, are found from the record of the disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Haughwout appended to the defendants' objection to his request for injunctive and/or mandatory relief; see Docket entry #108; and the evidence of Mr. Dukes and the Messrs. Haughwout taken at the August 8 hearing.

II

On September 17, 2015 a student at Central (complainant) went to the headquarters of the campus police to report a " suspicious incident" at the student center.^[3] This student provided a written statement in which he said that Mr. Haughwout " made verbal cues discussing the physical harm of another [Central] student, " identified the other student as " first on his hit list, " showed digital photos of a bullet on his cell phone and " remarked that he had loose bullets at home and in his truck." The complainant said he did not know Mr. Haughwout, but the statements were made in his presence. The complainant further reported that Mr. Haughwout had never shown any weapons on his person, and that he has " a habit of making hand gestures in the shape of handguns as a common gesture."

On September 21, 2015 the campus police interviewed another Central student who had known Mr. Haughwout since the spring semester 2015 and hung around with him in a group that met at the student center. That student recounted statements by Mr Haughwout that " someone should shoot up this school" or " I should just shoot up this school." Mr. Haughwout was " always" talking about guns and ammunition and " greets everyone by pointing at them with his hand in the shape of a gun." This student reported that Mr. Haughwout had said to him that he was his (Mr. Haughwout's) " number one target, " " number one on my list." Mr. Haughwout " brags constantly about his guns and ammunition, shows off pictures and boasts about wanting to bring a gun to school." This student described these statements by Mr. Haughwout as made " jokingly" and that the group in which they hung around dismissed what he said as a joke.

On the same day the campus police reinterviewed the complainant, who repeated his allegations of ...