Knoch v. Univ. of Pittsburgh

RYAN DOUGLAS KNOCH, Plaintiff, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH, DR. PATRICIA BEESON,KENYON BONNER, BARBARA RUPRECHT, ANTHONY BLEDSOE,CYNTHIA TANANIS, JENNIFER SENG, JANE DOE, AND;JOHN DOE (#1), AND; AND JOHN DOE (#2), Defendants

2:16-CV-00970-CRE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PITTSBURGH

August 31, 2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CYNTHIA REED EDDY, United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Ryan Douglas Knoch's ("Plaintiff's") Motion for Preliminary Injunction. [ECF No. 2]. In his motion, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated his due process and equal protection rights under Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), et seq, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in taking disciplinary action against him and suspending him from the University of Pittsburgh's (the "University's") Swanson School of Engineering. Plaintiff seeks a Court Order directing the University to allow Plaintiff to register for classes at the University for the Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 semesters notwithstanding his suspension. In the underlying Complaint, Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages for his financial loss, psychological and emotional distress, loss of standing in his community, damage to his reputation, his family's unreimbursed out of pocket expenses incurred in response to his suspension, and attorneys' fees and costs.

A preliminary injunction hearing was held on August 22, 2016. At the hearing, the Court heard from Richard Fann, a University Judicial Board Hearing Panel member, Barbara Ruprecht, the University's Student Conduct Officer, Cynthia Tananis, a University Review Board member, Kenyon Bonner, the University's Vice Provost and Dean of Students and Plaintiff Ryan Knoch. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.¹ For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

Plaintiff has been enrolled as a student at the University since Fall 2012. Joint Stip. [ECF No. 21] at ¶ 1. Plaintiff has to complete fourteen credits, or approximately one semester, to graduate. Tr. at 149. The facts underlying the instant action concern Plaintiff's suspension from the University of Pittsburgh's Swanson School of Engineering for alleged violations of the Student Code of Conduct ("Code"). Joint Stip. at ¶ 12. Plaintiff was alleged to have violated the Code in connection with his interaction with a female University Student, J.S. that occurred on January 28, 2016. Tr. at 46; Pl's Ex. 8 1/28/16 Judicial Referral. On that date, an argument ensued between Plaintiff and J.S. at J.S.'s residence. Pl.'s Ex. 8 1/28/16 Judicial Referral. The two were in or had been in a romantic or intimate relationship. Id. During the incident, Plaintiff is alleged to have placed his hands on J.S. in a way that could cause bruising and threw her laptop off of her kitchen table. Id. J.S. contacted the City of Pittsburgh Police Department who arrived on the scene. Id. Plaintiff was then arrested by the City of Pittsburgh Police Department and charged in Allegheny County with one count of Simple Assault and one count of Criminal Mischief. Joint Stip. at ¶ 7. These charges were later withdrawn at the magisterial level after Plaintiff completed twenty-four sessions of a batterers intervention class. Id. at ¶¶ 2-3. On thatsame date, a University complaint alleging that Plaintiff violated certain Code provisions, also referred to as a Judicial Referral, was filed against Plaintiff by University Police Officer Jonathan Beck who responded to the call involving the domestic dispute between Plaintiff and J.S. Id. at ¶¶ 9-11.

a. University of Pittsburgh Student Code of Conduct and Judicial Procedures

The University Student Code of Conduct and Judicial Procedures establishes procedures by which it adjudicates alleged conduct violations involving its students. Def.'s Ex. 1 2015 University Student Code of Conduct. Under the Code, ""[a]ny University official or member of the University community may institute a proceeding against a student . . . by filing a judicial referral with the Office of Student Conduct." Id. at 17. The Code defines a "judicial referral" as "a report filed regarding violations of the Code," Id. at 13, which must set forth the Code violation(s) alleged to have occurred, the parties to the alleged Code violation(s), the facts surrounding the alleged violation(s), and any witnesses to the alleged violation(s). Id. at 17.

The Code grades the severity of the judicial referral based on incident levels as to the alleged conduct. Id. at 14-19. Here, Plaintiff's alleged violation was graded as a Level II incident. Tr. at 67. Once a Level II incident judicial referral has been filed, a disciplinary conference is scheduled in order to allow a Student Conduct Officer to review the charges with the alleged offender. Def.'s Ex. 1 2015 University Student Code of Conduct at 19. At this meeting, the respondent is permitted to elect to hold a full hearing before the University's Judicial Board to determine the veracity of the alleged Code violations. Id. At the Judicial Board hearing, the Student Conduct Officer serves as moderator and three Judicial Board Members sit as panel members during the hearing. Id. at 19-20. The student is not permitted to a full "legal" evidentiary hearing and no technical rules of evidence are applied at the hearing. Id. However,the Student Conduct Officer in serving as the moderator controls the admissibility of evidence at the hearing and is guided by the "[r]easonable rules of relevancy" in determining whether evidence or testimony is admissible. Id. at 20.

After a Judicial Board hearing is held, the Judicial Board renders a decision and submits a recommendation to the Vice Provost and Dean of Students for final adjudication or decision. Id. at 19; 22. The Dean of Students may adopt the Judicial Board's recommendation or alter the recommended sanctions "if he or she believes that the totality of circumstances, including but not limited to any prior offenses and University precedents, justifies it." Id. at 22. The Dean of Students' final decision is then issued to both the complainant and the respondent. Id. at 22.

If the respondent disagrees with an adverse decision, the student retains the right to an appeal the decision to the University Review Board ("URB"). Id. at 22. The URB's scope of review is limited and may consider "whether rights affirmed by the Board of Trustees have been denied," whether the initial hearing was conducted "fairly and in conformity with properly prescribed procedures," and whether the findings and sanctions were "arbitrary and capricious" in nature. Id. at 23. The URB has discretion to determine the appeal based on the submission of the documents from the parties alone, with or without oral argument. Id. at 24. The URB then must render a final, written decision recommending action to the Provost, and may remand a matter to the Student Conduct Office for further proceedings if it determines that there are insufficient written findings or prejudicial procedural errors. Id. at 25. The Provost may either accept or reject the URB's recommendations. Pl.'s Ex. 29 at URB Rec. at 8.

b. Plaintiff's Alleged Violations of the University's Student Code of Conduct

The Judicial Referral filed on January 28, 2016 alleged that Plaintiff violated three provisions of the Code in connection with his interaction with J.S. pertaining to physical abuse,threat of physical abuse, and relationship violence. Joint Stip. [ECF No. 21] at ¶ 12.

Plaintiff was represented by counsel, and on February 4, 2016, Barbara Ruprecht ("Ruprecht"), the University's Student Conduct Officer, informed Plaintiff and his counsel that a Judicial Board Hearing would be held on February 25, 2016.² Id. at ¶¶ 13-15. On February 11, 2016, Plaintiff's counsel requested that three witnesses be permitted to testify at the February 25, 2016 hearing, including licensed psychologist Dr. Shannon Edwards. Id. at ¶ 16. Plaintiff sought for Dr. Edwards to testify as to the symptoms of mental disorders that J.S. allegedly reported suffering from and how those mental disorders would affect J.S.'s credibility at the Judicial Board Hearing. Tr. at 39-41. Ruprecht denied Plaintiff's counsel's request to permit Dr. Edwards to testify at Judicial Board Hearing, because Dr. Edwards had never treated J.S., and in Ruprecht's opinion, Dr. Edwards' proposed testimony regarding J.S.'s alleged mental disorders was not relevant to the issue of whether Plaintiff violated the University's Code of Conduct. Joint Stip. at ¶ 17.

On or about February 14, 2016, J.S. supplemented the January 28, 2016 Judicial Referral to include alleged events from August, October and November 2015 in which Plaintiff allegedly threatened, intimidated and/or used physical force against J.S. Id. at ¶ 18. At a meeting with Plaintiff, his counsel and parents shortly after J.S. supplemented the January 28, 2016 referral, Ruprecht informed Plaintiff that if he admitted responsibility or was found responsible for the violations of the Code for which he was accused, Ruprecht would recommend a two-term suspension for Plaintiff's infractions. Id. at ¶ 19. On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff's counsel requested and was granted a postponement of the February 25, 2016 Judicial Board Hearing inorder to properly investigate and prepare witnesses based on J.S.'s supplementation to the January 28, 2016 Judicial Referral. Id. at ¶¶ 20-21. The Judicial Board Hearing was rescheduled for March 17, 2016, to take place following the University's scheduled spring break. Id. at ¶ 22.

On or about March 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Judicial Referral against J.S. alleging various violations of the Code. He alleges that on a trip to Chicago he had taken with J.S. and her family in August 2015, J.S. had taken Plaintiff's debit card out of his wallet and used it without asking Plaintiff, and...