Summary
This federal district court order resolves a Section 1983 lawsuit filed by university students against police officers and university administrators following their arrest and disciplinary suspension over a campus prank involving a toy Nerf gun. The court denied the motion to dismiss claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and procedural due process, finding sufficient allegations of absent probable cause and inadequate hearing procedures. Conversely, the court granted dismissal of the equal protection claim and a related due process claim regarding the disciplinary hearing, noting conclusory racial allegations and the plaintiffs' failure to pursue available administrative appeals.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the police defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and dismissal of the Fourth Amendment false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims at the pleading stage.
- Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged that their temporary suspension from the public university violated procedural due process.
- Whether plaintiffs could maintain a procedural-due-process claim based on alleged bias and irregularities in the university disciplinary hearing without pursuing the available appeal process.
- Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged that university officials violated equal protection by treating them more harshly because of race.
Holdings
- The police defendants were not entitled to dismissal or qualified immunity at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage because plaintiffs plausibly alleged that their arrests and prosecutions lacked probable cause.
- Plaintiffs plausibly stated a procedural-due-process claim based on their four-day suspension without prior notice or an opportunity to present their side of the story.
- Plaintiffs failed to state a procedural-due-process claim based on alleged bias and irregularities in the disciplinary hearing because they did not pursue the available university appeal and did not allege that the appeal process was constitutionally inadequate.
- Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege an equal-protection violation because they did not identify similarly situated persons treated differently or facts supporting an inference that the university officials acted because of race.
Key quotations
“A probable cause determination is based upon the “totality of the circumstances,” including inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.” (§ II)
“The constitutional violation actionable under § 1983 is not complete when the deprivation occurs; it is not complete unless and until the State fails to provide due process.” (§ III.A)
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Counts I, II, and III and GRANTED as to Counts IV and V.” (Order)
Factual background
Andrew Evans and Ryan Geheb were present in a vehicle when their teammate, Valance Washington, pointed a toy Nerf gun from the vehicle and jokingly demanded money from pedestrians. Although witnesses reported that the gun looked fake and did not want to press charges, Oakland University police arrested all three students for armed robbery after Evans and Geheb denied participating in or encouraging the prank; the charges were later dropped. University officials temporarily suspended the students and initiated disciplinary proceedings, after which Evans and Geheb were found responsible for disruptive behavior and intimidation. Plaintiffs alleged that the police lacked probable cause, that the university denied them adequate process, and that officials acted with racial motivation because Washington was Black and Evans and Geheb were white.
Procedural history
After plaintiffs were arrested following a campus prank involving a toy Nerf gun, the criminal charges were dropped and university disciplinary proceedings resulted in findings of responsibility for some code-of-conduct violations. Plaintiffs filed this § 1983 action. The district court denied dismissal of the police defendants on the false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims and denied dismissal of the temporary-suspension due-process claim, but dismissed the due-process claim concerning the allegedly tainted disciplinary hearing and the equal-protection claim.