Doe v. Univ. of Ala. in Huntsville
Decision Date | 31 March 2016 |
Docket Number | Case No.: 5:14-cv-02029-HGD |
Parties | Jane Doe, Plaintiff, v. The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Brent Wren, PhD., Sgt. John Beswick, and Regina Young Hyatt, PhD., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
Mary-Ellen Bates, Bates Hetzel PC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.
John O. Cates, Robert W. Rieder, University of Alabama System, Huntsville, AL, for Defendants.
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
This case involves a public university's investigation into a student's claims that another student sexually assaulted her in a university dorm. Plaintiff Jane Doe alleges that defendant University of Alabama in Huntsville discriminated against her because of her sex in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.1
Ms. Doe also alleges that UAH, Associate Provost and NCAA Representative Brent Wren, UAH Police Sergeant John Beswisk, and Dean of Students Regina Young Hyatt violated her rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Ms. Doe seeks relief from the individual defendants under § 1983.
This case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Harwell Davis. On August 31, 2015, Judge Davis entered a report and recommendation concerning the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. (Doc. 17). In his report, Judge Davis recommended that the Court grant the defendants' motion and dismiss this action with prejudice. (Doc. 17, p. 27). Judge Davis explained to the parties that they had fourteen days in which to file objections to the recommendation. (Doc. 17, pp. 27-29). Ms. Doe filed objections to the recommendation. (Doc. 19).2 The defendants did not object to Judge Davis's report. Because the parties have not consented to dispositive jurisdiction by a magistrate judge, the Clerk randomly selected the undersigned to review Judge Davis's report and Ms. Doe's objections.
When a party objects to a report and recommendation regarding a motion to dismiss, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. at § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). The Court reviews de novo legal conclusions in a report and reviews for clear error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn , 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir.1993)
; see also
LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11th Cir.1988) ; Macort v. Prem, Inc. , 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir.2006). A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
When evaluating a motion to dismiss, a district court accepts as true the allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Brophy v. Jia n gbo Pharms. Inc. , 781 F.3d 1296, 1301 (11th Cir.2015)
.
Ms. Doe lodges three specific objections to Judge Davis's report. First, Ms. Doe complains that the report omits certain alleged facts relevant to her Title IX claim. Second, Ms. Doe objects to Judge Davis's conclusion that she has failed to sufficiently allege that UAH acted with deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment. Third, Ms. Doe asks the Court to allow discovery before dismissing with prejudice her § 1983 claims.
Ms. Doe's Title IX claim arises out of UAH's handling of her sexual assault complaint against UAH hockey player Lasse Uusivirta. Construing the facts that Ms. Doe alleged in her original complaint in the light most favorable to Ms. Doe, the Court finds that Ms. Doe has sufficiently alleged that UAH acted with deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment.
In her objections, Ms. Doe recites many of the alleged facts that give rise to an inference that UAH acted with deliberate indifference:
Ms. Doe's original complaint contains factual allegations that plausibly suggest that UAH's “ ‘response to the harassment or lack thereof [was] clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances' ” and that UAH made Ms. Doe vulnerable to harassment. Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga. , 477 F.3d 1282, 1295 (11th Cir.2007)
(quoting Davis v. Monro
e
Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 648, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999) ).
As noted above, see supra note 1, Judge Davis did not have the benefit of analyzing the defendants' motions against the additional allegations pleaded in Ms. Doe's proposed amended complaint. Although the Court finds that Ms. Doe's original complaint, standing alone, sufficiently pleads that UAH acted with deliberate indifference and states a Title IX claim, the Court briefly reviews allegations contained in the proposed amended complaint that further support her Title IX claim.
In her proposed amended complaint, Ms. Doe alleges that after the student conduct board recommended that UAH immediately expel Mr. Uusivirta, Ms. Doe (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 17). Section 7.5(k) of the UAH student handbook provides: (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 18). Dr. Hyatt assumed the role of Provost/Executive Vice President for purposes of reviewing the student conduct board's decision. (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 18).
Without Ms. Doe's knowledge, Mr. Uusivirta appealed the student conduct board's decision to Dr. Wren, who served as UAH's NCAA representative. (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 20). Neither Dr. Hyatt nor the assistant dean of students informed Ms. Doe that the recommended expulsion was on hold. (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 21). On March 21, 2013, Dr. Wren vacated the expulsion and substituted lesser sanctions. (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 22).
These facts plausibly suggest that UAH may not have followed its own policy regarding Mr. Uusivirta's hearing. There was no process outlined in the student handbook by which a student could appeal to Dr. Wren after the Provost/Executive Vice President—or Dr. Hyatt as Dean of Students in this case—reviewed the student conduct board's recommendations regarding sanctions. Additionally, neither Dr. Hyatt nor Dr. Wren has the title of Provost/Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs. If one or both of these individuals reviewed the student conduct board's decision, and the Provost/Executive Vice President of Student Affairs did not review...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burks v. Coastal Ala. Cmty. Coll.
...colleges are arms of the State and the State is immune to suits under Section 1983. As explained in Doe v. Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville, 177 F. Supp. 3d 1380, 1386-87 (N.D. Ala. 2016):The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that: "[t]he judicial power of t......
-
United States v. Yarbrough
...court reviews them only for clear error. Garvey v. Vaughn , 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993) ; Doe v. Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville , 177 F.Supp.3d 1380, 1383–84 (N.D. Ala. 2016).The witnesses at the evidentiary hearing agreed about most of what happened at Mr. Yarbrough's house on t......
-
Doe v. Bd. of Regents
... ... receiving Federal financial assistance.' ” ... Does 1-2 v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 999 F.3d ... 571, 577 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)) ... to be “shocking to one's conscience].” ... Doe v. Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville, 177 F.Supp.3d ... 1380, 1397 (N.D. Ala. 2016) (quoting United States v ... Lanier, ... ...
-
Brown v. The GEO Grp.
...did not “provide any information regarding anyone else, not in her protected class, who received more favorable treatment.” Doe, 177 F.Supp.3d. at 1397. There, sanctions were imposed against plaintiff's attackers after an investigation and the court found that plaintiff's discontent with th......