In re Haney

JOHN V. HANEY, Plaintiff, v. WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-02456

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

August 16, 2018

OPINION

Slomsky, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff John V. Haney brings this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking a declaration that disciplinary proceedings pending against him are unconstitutional and an order enjoining them. He names as Defendants West Chester University (WCU), Zebulun R. Davenport, Ph.D. and Christina Brenner.¹ (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff turned to the Court after learning that Defendants Davenport and Brenner, acting in the scope of their employment at WCU, charged Plaintiff with violating provisions of WCU's Student Code of Conduct ("Code") allegedly for lying on his online application to WCU. (Id. at 7.) A hearing to adjudicate the charges has been scheduled. (Id.) The hearing will determine whether Plaintiff violated theprovisions under which he is charged. (Id.) If such a finding is made, it may result in Plaintiff being suspended or expelled from WCU. (Id.)

Plaintiff initiated this action on June 13, 2018 by filing the Complaint. (Id.) Five days after he filed the Complaint, on June 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. No. 2.) In the Complaint and in the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff alleges that the pending disciplinary proceedings violate procedural due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2.) He asks this Court to enjoin Defendants from proceeding with the proposed hearing to adjudicate his alleged violations of the Code. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2.)

In response to the Complaint, Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 9.) They argue under Rule 12(b)(1) that because Plaintiff complains about a process that has not yet occurred, the matter is not ripe and therefore the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the Complaint. (Id.) They argue under Rule 12(b)(6) that the Code comports with due process in all respects and therefore the Complaint fails to state a claim.² (Doc. No. 9.)

In response to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Defendants have filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 12), to which Plaintiff has filed a Reply (Doc. No. 15). Plaintiff also has filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 10), and Defendants have filed a Reply (Doc. No. 14).

Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 2) and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9) also have been fully briefed and all Motions are ready for disposition.³

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual History

In January 2015, after completing his first semester as a freshman at Quinnipiac University, Plaintiff transferred to Temple University for the second semester of his freshman year. (Doc. No. 1 at 6.) On February 7, 2015, Plaintiff was arrested and charged with assaulting Michael Fischer, another Temple University Student, at Fischer's apartment. (Id.)

By letter dated February 12, 2015, Plaintiff notified Temple University that he was voluntarily withdrawing from enrollment there. (Id.) By letter dated February 17, 2015, Temple University notified Plaintiff that he had been expelled for violating the Temple Student Conduct Code. (Id.)

On February 26, 2015, Plaintiff applied to WCU by completing WCU's online application. (Id.) He applied as a transfer student from Quinnipiac University. (Id.) Section 6 of WCU's online application sought information about prior colleges attended by Plaintiff. (Id.) Section 6 asked: "Have you ever been dismissed or suspended from an institution of highereducation for disciplinary reasons?" (Id.) Plaintiff answered "No" to this question. (Id.) By letter dated April 24, 2015, Plaintiff was notified that he had been admitted to WCU as a full-time undergraduate student for the 2015 fall term. (Id.) He has been a full-time undergraduate student at WCU to the present date. (Id.)

On April 12, 2016, a jury found Plaintiff guilty of simple assault regarding his February 7, 2015 fight with Michael Fischer. (Id.) Currently pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is a civil lawsuit filed by Michael Fischer against Plaintiff and other defendants that arises out of the February 7, 2015 incident. (Id. at 7.)

In early March 2018, Defendant Davenport received a letter from Fisher's counsel in the civil case apprising WCU of Plaintiff's criminal conviction and the related civil suit. (Id.) Davenport subsequently forwarded the letter to Defendant Brenner with instructions to open an investigation into the events surrounding Plaintiff's application and admission to WCU. (Id.) The investigation found probable cause that Plaintiff lied on his online application for admission to WCU. (See id.)

On June 28, 2018, Brenner notified Plaintiff that he has been charged with violating § I(C)(16) (Dishonesty) and § I(C)(20)(d) (Failure to Comply) of the Code and that a Judicial Board Hearing on those pending charges had been scheduled for July 11, 2018. (Id.) After a telephone conference with the parties and the Court, WCU postponed the hearing to the week of August 20, 2018. (Id.; Doc. No. 11.) Brenner also has notified Plaintiff that WCU intends to apply the procedures set forth in the 2015 version of the Code (the "2015 Code") in adjudicating the charges against him.⁴ A finding that Plaintiff violated either § I(C)(16) or § I(C)(20)(d) ofthe 2015 Code might result in Plaintiff being suspended or expelled from WCU. (Doc. No. 1 at 7.)

B. Procedural Provisions of the 2015 Code

According to the 2015 Code, alleged violations of the Code that may result in a student being suspended or expelled are to be adjudicated by a University Judicial Board composed of two students and one faculty or staff member. (Doc. No. 10, Ex. A.) The procedure set forth in the 2015 Code to adjudicate an alleged violation of the Code is as follows:

a) The hearing officer/board shall open the proceedings by reading the statement of charges.

b) Before presenting any testimony, each witness must submit to an oath where he or she swears and affirms the truth of statements to be made.

c) The charging party shall then present its case against the accused party. This shall be done by the submission of written, physical, and testimonial evidence.

d) At the conclusion of the charging party/victim/complainant's presentation, the accused party shall present a response to the charges. This shall be done by the submission of written, physical, and/or testimonial evidence.

e) At the close of the hearing, the hearing officer/board may allow closing statements by the parties, which may include rebuttal comments.

(Id. at 8.) The Code requires that "[t]he hearing officer/board shall be responsible for ensuring that each student is given due process during all conferences and hearings, whether or not the student is present." (Id.) The Code further ensures that "[p]ending action on the charges, thestudent's status shall not be altered nor shall the student's right to be present on campus or to attend classes be suspended, except for reasons relating to his or her physical or emotional safety and well-being." (Id. at 9.)

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Standard Governing a Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy." Kos Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Therefore, preliminary injunctive relief "should be granted only in limited circumstances." Id. (citation omitted). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show as a prerequisite

(1) a reasonable probability of eventual success in the litigation, and (2) that it will be irreparably injured . . . if relief is not granted . . . . [In addition,] the district court, in considering whether to grant a preliminary injunction, should take into account, when they are relevant, (3) the possibility of harm to other interested persons from the grant or denial of the injunction, and (4) the public interest.

Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 176 (3d Cir. 2017) (alteration in original) (quoting Del. River Port Auth. v. Transamerican Trailer Transp., Inc., 501 F.2d 917, 919-20 (3d Cir. 1974)). A party moving for a preliminary injunction must initially "meet the threshold for the first two . . . factors," and only if these "gateway factors" are met should the district court then consider the remaining two factors. Id. at 178. The court must then determine "in its sound discretion if all four factors, taken together, balance in favor of granting the requested preliminary relief." Id. at 179.

B. Standard Governing Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), motions challenging this Court's jurisdiction fall into two categories: a facial or factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction. A facial attack "challenges subject matter jurisdiction without disputing the facts alleged in thecomplaint, and it requires the court to 'consider the allegations of the complaint as true.'" Davis v. Wells Fargo, 824 F.3d 333, 346 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294, 302 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006)). A factual challenge "attacks the factual allegations underlying the complaint's assertion of jurisdiction, either through the filing of an answer or 'otherwise present[ing] competing facts.'" Id. at 346 (quoting Constitution Party of Pa. v. Aichele, 757 F.3d 347, 358 (3d Cir. 2014)).

"Courts have considered a challenge to the ripeness of a claim to be a facial challenge to subject matter jurisdiction." Evanston Ins. v. Layne Thomas Builders, Inc., 635 F. Supp. 2d 348, 352 (D. Del. 2009) (citing Thompson v. Borough of Munhall, 44 F. App'x 582, 583 (3d Cir. 2002)). "In reviewing a facial attack, the court must only consider the allegations of the complaint and documents...