Valentine v. Lock Haven Univ. of Pa. of the State Sys. of Higher Educ.

ERIKA N. VALENTINE, Plaintiff v. LOCK HAVEN UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA OF THE STATESYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:13-cv-00523

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

July 14, 2014

(Judge Brann)

MEMORANDUM

For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)) of Defendants Lock Haven University, Deborah Erickson, Donna Wilson, and Walter Eisenhauer is granted as to plaintiff's claims arising under federal law. The Court will relinquish jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims arising under state law.

I. General Background

On February 25, 2013, Defendants removed this case to federal court, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights jurisdiction). By that time, plaintiff Erika N. Valentine was already onto her Third Amended Complaint, which set forth eight counts. Two counts are asserted againstLock Haven University (hereinafter, the "University") alone - count I, petition for writ of mandamus, and count II, declaratory judgment. Count III alleges that Defendants Erickson and Eisenhauer, in their personal capacities, violated Valentine's substantive due process rights, and count IV alleges that the same Defendants, again in their personal capacities, violated Valentine's procedural due process rights. Count V alleges that Defendant Wilson, in her personal capacity, violated Valentine's substantive due process rights. Counts VI and VII allege that Erickson, Eisenhauer, and Wilson, in their official capacities, as well as the University, violated Valentine's substantive (count VI) and procedural (count VII) due process rights, respectively. Valentine asserts the Defendants are liable for the foregoing due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.¹ Count VIII alleges that Eisenhauer intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Valentine.

On March 19, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims. (ECF No. 4). Valentine filed a brief in opposition on April 18, 2013. (ECF No. 10).

II. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Standard

"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 662. The goal behind the standard is to weed out those claims that do not present "enough" factual matter, assumed to be true, "to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence" in support of the claims. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. Where a "plaintiff[] [fails to] nudge[] [her] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, [her] complaint must be dismissed." Id. at 570.

As a matter of procedure, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has instructed that,

after Iqbal, when presented with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, district courts should conduct a two-part analysis. First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated. The District Court must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. [Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79]. Second, a District Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a "plausible claim for relief." [Id. at 679].

Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009).

The Third Circuit permits the statute of limitations - although technically an affirmative defense - to be raised on motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as long as the basis for the defense is apparent from the face of the complaint. See Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 135 (3d Cir. 2002).

III. The Third Amended Complaint

Valentine makes the following allegations in support of her claims.

The University is part of Pennsylvania's State System of Higher Education. (Third Am. Compl., Feb. 25, 2013, ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 2). Erickson was once the University's Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs; Wilson currently holds those titles. (Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 7). Eisenhauer is an associate professor at the University and Director of the University's Physician's Assistant Program (hereinafter, the "Program"). (Id. ¶ 9). Valentine was admitted to the Program in early 2006. (Id. ¶ 10).

Valentine's troubles began over a year later in summer 2007. It was then that students and faculty of the Program attended a medical conference - where the conference was held is not revealed. (Id. ¶ 11). In any event, the conference concluded, and that evening Valentine dined out together with fellow students at a restaurant/bar. (Id. ¶ 12). While Valentine and the others were dining, Eisenhauaerentered the restaurant, sat down at Valentine's table, and encouraged his newfound company to join him for drinks. (Id. ¶ 14). Valentine and others decided to leave early, but before they could complete their escape, Eisenhauer took up and kissed the hand of the "clearly offended" Valentine as the students were exiting. (Id. ¶ 15-16). Eisenhauer's indiscretion generated an "anonymous report of the kiss and the offensive behavior exhibited by Eisenhauer toward Valentine" at the restaurant. (Id. ¶ 17). Eisenhauer mistakenly believed that Valentine had authored the report, and began a scorched earth campaign to drum Valentine out of the Program. (Id. ¶ 18).

Eisenhauer's first shot came out of the blue in August 2007: he asserted that Valentine lacked the prerequisite coursework necessary for admission to the Program. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22). Alone among her peers, Valentine was threatened with dismissal if she did not resubmit her undergraduate transcripts to prove she had completed the Program prerequisites. (Id. ¶¶ 23

Surviving that skirmish, Valentine continued in the Program without incident until February 11, 2008, when Professor Anna Mae Smith, at Eisenhauer's behest, abruptly informed Valentine that she (Valentine) was dismissed from the Program for failure to turn in an assignment from winter 2007, an assignment Valentine had not previously been informed was missing. (Id. ¶¶ 26, 28-30). At thetime of Smith's tidings, Valentine was in the midst of an off-site clinical rotation; Smith told Valentine not to continue. (Id. ¶¶ 25, 31). The next day, February 12, 2008, Eisenhauer confirmed Valentine's dismissal by e-mail and reiterated that she was not permitted to return to her clinical rotation. (Id. ¶ 32). A formal dismissal letter followed on February 15, 2008. (Id. ¶ 34). Valentine's dismissal was not preceded by a hearing and did not comply "with the written policies and procedures of [the University] regarding academic misconduct and dismissal from the University." (Id. ¶¶ 35-36).

Proceeding "under the [University] appeals process policies and procedures," Valentine appealed her dismissal to Eisenhauer on February 15, 2008. (Id. ¶ 37). Eisenhauer denied Valentine's appeal on February 29, 2008. (Id. ¶ 38). Valentine appealed Eisenhauer's denial to the University's Graduate Council, which held a hearing - attended by Valentine and her legal counsel - on March 21, 2008. (Id. ¶¶ 39-41). At the hearing, Eisenhauer confronted Valentine with accusations that, it was revealed, he had never notified her of prior to the hearing. (Id. ¶¶ 42-45). On April 7, 2008, the University's Graduate Council readmitted Valentine to the Program "without prejudice or qualification." (Id. ¶ 46). Valentine had not been permitted to continue her coursework while her appeals were pending. (Id. ¶ 33).

Eisenhauer did not cease fire, conditioning Valentine's readmission on his designation of her advisor, Professor Steve Harris, and on Valentine taking a practical examination that Eisenhauer would proctor and grade. (Id. ¶¶ 49-51). Eisenhauer represented that the examination was intended to refresh Valentine's skills and would not count against her, but after Valentine took the examination, Eisenhauer told her that she had failed and would have to take it again. (Id. ¶¶ 53-55). Valentine took the exam again; Eisenhauer told her that she had failed again. (Id. ¶ 56). He added that, were Valentine to fail a third time, she would be dismissed from the Program. (Id. ¶ 57). After Valentine's counsel intervened, it was agreed that Valentine would take a third exam with Professor Harris present during evaluation. (Id. ¶ 59). With Harris present, Valentine passed. (Id. ¶ 60).

Readmitted to the Program, Valentine requested that her next clinical rotation return her to the doctor's office from which she had been removed in February 2008. (Id. ¶ 61). Students in the Program are generally permitted to select the doctor who will supervise them on their rotations, but Eisenhauer denied Valentine's request and assigned her a supervisor with whom he had "connections and close associations, including an employment relationship," according to Valentine. (Id. ¶¶ 62-63). After her lawyer intervened, however, Valentine's initial request was granted. (Id. ¶¶ 64-65).

Eisenhauer then unilaterally - and without explanation - changed Valentine's advisor from Professor Harris to two professors whose "decisions he [(Eisenhauer)] could control," according to Valentine. (Id. ¶¶ 66-68). Valentine was the only student whose advisor was unilaterally changed by Eisenhauer at that time, and she became the only student in the Program with two advisors. (Id. ¶¶ 69-70).

Then the coup de grace. In December 2008, during Valentine's last rotation necessary to complete the Program, Eisenhauer summoned her to return to the University to take her summative examinations. (Id. ¶ 71). By contrast, none of her peers was likewise required to take summative exams prior to completion of clinical rotations and before the end of the semester. (Id. ¶ 72).

Eisenhauer proctored...