This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Constitutional Law
Due Process Violation

Jane Doe v. Timothy White, Chancellor; Sarah Clegg, Title IX Coordinator, Sonoma State University; Joyce Suzuki; William Kidder; Jesse Andrews

Published: Oct. 23, 2020 | Result Date: Feb. 24, 2020 | Filing Date: Aug. 15, 2019 |

Case number: 3:19-cv-04923-SI Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Susan Y. Illston

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Daniel C. Roth
(Law Office of Daniel C. Roth)

Lara A. Bazelon
(University of San Francisco School of Law)

Joshua Engel
(Engel and Martin LLC)


Defendant

Arthur A. Hartinger
(Renne Public Law Group)

Ian T. Long
(Renne Public Law Group)

Ryan P. McGinley-Stempel
(Renne Public Law Group)


Facts

Plaintiff Jane Doe was a graduate student enrolled in Sonoma State University's two-year master's program in Depth Psychology. Doe alleged that she was accused of sexual misconduct for feigning masturbation during a school sanctioned dream based movement exercise. Doe further alleged that, after Sonoma State notified her of the allegations against her and interviewed her regarding the incident, she was not permitted to attend her graduate level courses as an interim remedy pending the investigation. She alleged that the investigation took 14 months. Sonoma State ultimately found that Doe did not violate university policies for sexual misconduct. Plaintiff sued Timothy White, Chancellor of the California State University System, Sarah Clegg, Director of Title IX and HR Compliance at Sonoma State for violation of her Fourteenth Amendment Rights to the constitution under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that her procedural due process rights were violated when defendants did not provide her with a hearing prior to her 14 month alleged suspension and failed to give plaintiff an opportunity to present her case prior to alleged suspension. Plaintiff also contended that she was deprived of her property because she continued to be enrolled in Sonoma State and paid tuition fees during her suspension.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that plaintiff was required to exhaust her state judicial remedies before plaintiff can pursue a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim. Defendants contended that they were protected from plaintiff's claims under the privilege of qualified immunity, both because the law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional deprivation and because there was no constitutional deprivation in the first instance.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint because defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for lack of clearly established law.


#135828

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390