Caldwell v. Univ. of N.M. Bd. of Regents

• Citation: 510 F.Supp.3d 982
• Decision Date: 31 December 2020
• Docket Number: No. CIV 20-0003 JB/JFR,CIV 20-0003 JB/JFR
• Parties: Joseph CALDWELL, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO BOARD OF REGENTS, Nasha Torrez, Lobo Development Corporation, ACC OP (UNM SOUTH) LLC, and Eddie Nuñez, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

510 F.Supp.3d 982

Joseph CALDWELL, Plaintiff,

v.UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO BOARD OF REGENTS, Nasha Torrez, Lobo Development Corporation, ACC OP (UNM SOUTH) LLC, and Eddie Nuñez, Defendants.

No. CIV 20-0003 JB/JFR

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Filed December 31, 2020

Justine Fox-Young, Justine Fox-Young, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- Paul J. Kennedy, Kennedy, Hernandez & Associates, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.

Patrick J. Hart, Office of University Counsel, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico --and-- Alfred A. Park, Lawrence M. Marcus, Park & Associates, L.L.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendants University of New Mexico Board of Regents, and Nasha Torrez.

Alfred A. Park, Lawrence M. Marcus, Park & Associates, L.L.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Eddie Nuñez.

MEMORANDUM OPINION ¹

JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Eddie Nuñez’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed February 14, 2020 (Doc. 23)("Motion"). The Court held a hearing on April 24, 2020. See Clerk's Minutes, filed April 24, 2020 (Doc. 36). The primary issues are: (i) whether Plaintiff Joseph Caldwell has alleged facts sufficient to state a due process interest in (a) his continued enrollment at Defendant University of New Mexico ("UNM"); (b) playing basketball for UNM; (c) his reputation; and (d) his future professional basketball career; (ii) whether UNM's actions comported with procedural due process when Caldwell was banned from campus; (iii) whether Caldwell can sue Nuñez for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because Caldwell's procedural due process rights were clearly established; and (iv) whether Nuñez violated procedural due process, because Nuñez’ actions -- banning Caldwell from campus -- shock the judicial conscience. The Court concludes that (i) Caldwell has a due process property interest in his continued education at UNM, and Caldwell alleges sufficiently that Nuñez interfered with this interest by banning Caldwell from campus property, but Caldwell does not have a due process interest in playing basketball for UNM; his reputation; or his future professional basketball career; (ii) UNM's actions comported with procedural due process when Caldwell was banned from campus, because, although the campus ban is more than a de minimis taking of Caldwell's interest in his continued education, none of UNM's hearing procedures placed Caldwell at risk of erroneous deprivation and UNM has a legitimate interest in maintaining a safe learning environment and preserving its limited administrative resources; (iii) Caldwell cannot sue Nuñez for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because Caldwell's procedural due process rights were not clearly established; and (iv) Nuñez did not violate Caldwell's substantive due process rights, because banning Caldwell from campus does not shock the judicial conscience. Accordingly, the Court will grant Nuñez’ request for judgment on the pleadings, because Caldwell does not state a claim against Nuñez upon which relief can be granted.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court takes the facts from Caldwell's First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages ¶¶ 11-12, at 3, filed January 2, 2020 (Doc. 1)("First Amended Complaint"). The same standards for evaluating a rule 12(b)(6) motion apply to a motion for a judgment on the pleadings. See Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita, 226 F.3d 1138, 1160 (10th Cir. 2000) ("A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is treated as a motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6)."). Thus, the Court accepts "all facts pleaded by the non-moving party as true and grants all reasonable inferences from the pleadings in that party's favor." Sanders v. Mountain Am. Fed. Credit Union, 689 F.3d 1138, 1141 (10th Cir. 2012).

Plaintiff Joseph Caldwell enrolled at UNM in January 2019. See First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 11-12, at 3. In January 2019, Caldwell moved into Lobo Village development,² and his lease agreement had an end date of July 31, 2020. See First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 12-13, at 3. In April, 2019, Caldwell agreed to play as a point guard with UNM Men's Basketball program. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 16, at 3.

On December 16, 2019, "the Albuquerque Police Department took a report of allegations of battery against" Caldwell. First Amended Complaint ¶ 17, at 3. The person who accused Caldwell of battery is not a UNM student. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 18, at 4. On December 19, 2019, UNM's Dean of Students’ Office ("DOS") emailed Caldwell (the "December 19 Email"), informing him that, based on the recent allegations, he was (i) "hereby interim banned from all of UNM Campus, except for UNM Hospitals and Clinics for the purpose of seeking medical care and except for [his] in-person courses for Spring 2020 semester"; (ii) banned from Lobo Village and all on-campus housing facilities; (iii) banned from the Johnson Gym, except for attendance of a class he was registered for, and banned from any other portion of campus without express permission from the DOS; (iv) only permitted to register for or attend online courses, except for a class he was already registered for; and (v) failure to comply with the campus ban and the Code of Conduct charges would result in criminal charges for trespass that could lead to possible expulsion. First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 19-21, at 4. The December 19 Email also informed Caldwell that he would not be able to contact anyone at the DOS from December 21, 2019, through January 1, 2020, because UNM would be closed. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 19, at 4. The December 19 Email stated that the recent allegations were "under the jurisdiction of the Office of Equal Opportunity." See First Amended Complaint ¶ 20, at 4.

On December 19, 2019, Caldwell went to a meeting chaired by Nuñez (the "December 19 Meeting"). See First Amended Complaint ¶ 22, at 5. Several other people from the athletic department and from UNM administration were present at the December 19 Meeting. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 22, at 5. Nuñez ran the December 19 Meeting and "informed [Caldwell] that he was banned from campus indefinitely" and that he was also banned from playing or practicing with the basketball team. First Amended Complaint ¶ 23, at 5.

That same day, Caldwell received an eviction notice from Lobo Development Corporation, stating that he had to move out within three days or face eviction proceedings. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 25, at 5. The eviction notice stated that Caldwell was "[b]anned from the University of New Mexico, Residence Life and Student Housing, and American Campus Communities." First Amended Complaint ¶ 26, at 5. The eviction notice explained that Caldwell had violated his lease agreement, because of his "unlawful action causing serious physical harm to another person." First Amended Complaint ¶ 26, at 5.

On December 20, 2019, Caldwell had a meeting with the Office of Equal Opportunity ("OEO"), where he denied the charges against him. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 29, at 5. Sometime after his meeting with the Office of Equal Opportunity, Caldwell had a meeting with Defendant Nasha Torrez, where Torrez reiterated that Caldwell was suspended, and that she would decide whether to extend his suspension. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 30, at 5. Torrez told Caldwell that the campus ban would remain in place until January 2, 2020, the end of the holiday break, and that Caldwell had no opportunity to appeal the ban. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 30, at 5.

On December 30, 2019, Greg Golden, Assistant Dean of Students, emailed Caldwell. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 35, at 6. In the email, Golden informed Caldwell that if he wanted to discuss UNM's campus ban, Caldwell would have to reach out to Kelly Davis, UNM Student Conduct Officer in the Office of the Dean of Students, who had "promulgated the ‘ban letter.’ " First Amended Complaint ¶ 35, at 6.

On January 10, 2020, Caldwell and his counsel had a meeting with Torrez. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 40, at 7. At the meeting, Torrez told Caldwell that a Student Conduct Officer, an employee in Torrez’ office, "had imposed the ban and that [Torrez] was entirely uninvolved in that process." First Amended Complaint ¶ 41, at 7. When Caldwell asked that Torrez lift the ban entirely, Torrez stated that although she would consider his request, she could not say how long it would take her to decide whether to lift the ban or to what extent it would be lifted. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 42, at 7.

UNM has a Code of Student Conduct ("CSC"), an Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual ("APP"), and a Student Grievance Procedure ("SGP"). See First Amended Complaint ¶ 64, at 10. The APP states that the OEO "shall receive inquiries regarding issues involving civil rights issues; counsel claimants; evaluate claims; receive and process formal claims; prepare written investigative reports which contain findings of fact; and conciliate meritorious claims separately or jointly with the parties." First Amended Complaint ¶ 68, at 10. Under UNM's polices, an accused student may seek "a discretionary review of [Office of Equal Opportunity's] determination through the Office of the President ... and/or the Board of Regents." First Amended Complaint ¶ 71, at 11. UNM's policies also state:

Should the Dean of Students Office take action based on the investigation's findings, both parties will have equal rights to appeal the action ... [,] will have equal access to the information upon which the findings are based, have an equal opportunity to present evidence and witnesses (subject to the limitations in the statement of complainant's rights [ ]), and will receive equal notification of the results of the procedure. Both parties also will have the equal right to appeal the results of the grievance of the Dean of Students Office's decision ....

First Amended Complaint ¶ 72, at 11...