McCauley v. Univ. of the Virgin Islands
| Decision Date | 21 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 2005–188. |
| Citation | 52 V.I. 816 |
| Parties | Stephen McCAULEY, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF the VIRGIN ISLANDS, Sean Georges in his individual and official capacities, Dr. Laverne Ragster, in her individual and official capacities, and Jon and/or Jane Does I through X, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Darren J. Baptiste, Esq., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., for plaintiff.
Marie E. Thomas–Griffith, Esq., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., for defendants.
This matter was tried on May 11, 2009. Pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court now enters its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
At all times relevant to this action, Stephen McCauley (“McCauley”) was a student at the University of the Virgin Islands (“UVI,” or the “University”). Sean Georges (“Georges”) is the director of student housing at UVI. At all times relevant hereto, Dr. LaVerne E. Ragster (“Ragster”), was the president of the University.
McCauley first enrolled at the University in the fall of 2005. During McCauley's tenure at the University, student life was governed by the University of the Virgin Islands Student Handbook 2005–2006 (the “Handbook”), which includes a Code of Student Conduct (the “Code”) that lists prohibited behavior and sanctions for particular violations. The Handbook was provided to McCauley during the first week of student orientation.
On the night of September 30, 2005, a group of UVI students, including McCauley, went to a local beach. Sometime that night, two members of the group, Josh Carlson (“Carlson”) and Jenna Piasecki (“Piasecki”), moved about ten to fifteen feet away from the group. Piasecki then performed a sexual act upon Carlson. Piasecki and Carlson later rejoined the group. Thereafter, the group left the beach and returned to campus.
On October 1, 2005, Carlson was charged with the rape of Piasecki, based on the events that occurred the previous night on the beach. Also on October 1, 2005, McCauley and two friends visited Piasecki's dormitory room to talk to her about the alleged rape.
Piasecki thereafter complained to University officials that McCauley had harassed her. In October, 2005, Georges first advised McCauley that Piasecki had made complaints of harassment against him. Georges also advised McCauley to stay away from Piasecki if he wanted to avoid the commencement of University judicial proceedings. McCauley was subsequently approached a second time in connection with Piasecki's complaints that he had harassed her, and was warned by Jay Wiltshire and Robin Olson of campus security to avoid all contact with Piasecki.
On or about November 7, 2005, McCauley received Notice of Charges (the “November 2005 Notice”), which stated that he was being charged by the University with failing to obey a lawful directive of a University official and with hazing and harassment. The November 2005 Notice charges McCauley with violating the following University policies:
Hazing–Harassment: Committing, conspiring to commit, or causing to be committed any act which causes or is likely to cause serious physical or mental harm or which tends to injure or actually injure, frightens, demeans, degrades or disgraces any person. This includes but is not limited to violation of the University's policies on hazing, sexual harassment or sexual assault.
Failure to comply with the lawful direction of a University Official: Failure to comply with the directions of University or other law enforcement officers, or University officials in the proper performance of their duties.
(Plaintiff's Ex. 5, Notice of Charges 1, Nov. 7, 2005.) McCauley plead not guilty to the charges listed in the November 2005 Notice.
After receiving the November 2005 Notice, McCauley posted a photograph of himself and Piasecki on a social networking website called Myspace.com. The picture bore the caption, “Fat sluts need loving, too.” McCauley testified at trial that he posted the photograph out of frustration and anger about the charges against him, and that he intended the posting to offend Piasecki. McCauley testified during the trial that the charges contained in the November 2005, Notice stemmed from his posting of Piasecki's picture on Myspace.com, as well as from allegations made by Piasecki that McCauley made indecent remarks to her at an off campus bar.
As a result of the harassment of Piasecki, McCauley was also criminally charged with tampering with a witness. He agreed to pretrial intervention in 2006. He also agreed to perform sixty hours of community service for the tampering charge, and paid a fee of $275 to Pretrial Intervention Services.
The University agreed to allow McCauley's criminal case to proceed to conclusion before it would commence any disciplinary hearings as a result of the November 2005, Notice. Consistent with that agreement, between November 7, 2005, and April, 2009, the University did not move forward on any proceedings related to the November 2005 Notice of Charges against McCauley.
On November 10, 2005, McCauley commenced the above-captioned action for damages and injunctive relief against UVI, Georges, Ragster, and Jon and/or Jane Does I through X, who are identified in McCauley's complaint as certain unnamed University students, employees, and officials involved with implementing disciplinary procedures against UVI students. Count One of McCauley's complaint alleges that the Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) by enacting regulations that impermissibly infringe on McCauley's rights to free expression and due process of law. Count Two alleges that the Defendants violated Section 1983 by enacting regulations that impermissibly infringe on McCauley's right to freedom of association.
McCauley received a second Notice of Charges, dated March 31, 2009 (the “March 2009 Notice”), which listed the same charges as the November 2005 Notice, and also added a charge against McCauley for violating the University's drug and alcohol policy. Additionally, the March 2009 Notice stated that the charges were based on: McCauley's visit to Piasecki's dormitory room on October 1, 2005; an allegedly harassing telephone call McCauley made to Piasecki on October 18, 2005; and McCauley's allegedly harassing conduct directed toward Piasecki at an off-campus bar on October 20, 2005.
On April 28, 2009, the University conducted its disciplinary proceedings against McCauley based on charges contained in the March 2009 Notice. McCauley was found guilty of Hazing–Harassment, and of Failure to Comply with a Lawful Directive of a University Official. McCauley was ordered by the University to write a letter of apology to Piasecki and to pay a fine in the amount of $200.
A bench trial in this matter was conducted on May 11, 2009. During the trial, McCauley indicated that he was challenging Paragraphs B, C, D, E, H and R of the Code. McCauley testified on his own behalf at the trial, describing the ways in which he was adversely affected by the challenged provisions of the Code. During the trial, McCauley argued that, by bringing charges against him based on the above-mentioned conduct, the University violated his First Amendment rights. After the close of the evidence, McCauley verbally moved to amend his Complaint to conform to the evidence. Specifically, he wished to include an as-applied challenge 1 to the Code provisions in question. At the conclusion of the trial, McCauley stated that he wished to dismiss the due process challenges alleged in his complaint. The Court construes that statement as a withdrawal of such claims.
On August 20, 2009, the Court granted McCauley's motion to amend, and permitted McCauley to file a Third Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”). In addition to Counts One and Two described above, the Third Amended Complaint contains a third count, embodying McCauley's as-applied challenge. Count Three of the Complaint, asserts, inter alia, that
Plaintiff, by being subjected to actual or potential disciplinary proceedings for, inter alia, “[c] ommitting, conspiring to commit, or causing to be committed any act which causes or is likely to cause serious physical or mental harm or which tends to injure or actually injures, frightens, demeans, degrades or disgraces any person” has been unlawfully forced to limit and/or refrain from engaging in constitutionally protected speech both on and off campus out of fear that anything he may do or say may be actionable under the Code of Conduct.
...
Defendants, acting under color of territorial and/or federal law, have enacted regulations that deprived Plaintiff of his guaranteed and clearly established rights to freedom of expression, speech, and association under the First Amendment.
(Third Am. Compl. 12–13, ¶¶ 55, 57, May 21, 2009.)
As a threshold matter, the Court must determine whether McCauley has standing to bring this action. See, e.g., Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. Twp. of Hampton, 411 F.3d 399, 405 (3d Cir.2005) (). In addition to being a constitutional inquiry, standing is also subject to certain prudential limitations that reflect the need for judicial restraint.2See, e.g., Joint Stock
As a general matter, in order to establish Article III standing, a plaintiff
must demonstrate “injury in fact”—a harm that is both “concrete” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Second, he must establish causation—a “fairly ... traceable” connection between the alleged injury in fact and the alleged conduct of the defendant. And third, he must demonstrate redressability—a “substantial likelihood” that the requested relief will remedy the alleged injury in fact. These requirements together constitute the “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing, which is an “essential...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason Univ.
...much more speech than that which could reasonably be found to cause a threat of substantial disruption.” McCauley v. Univ. of the V.I. , 52 V.I. 816, 849 (D.V.I.2009). Like the provision struck down in McCauley, Code 2013.9.B purports to cover all student speech—regardless whether it occurs......