Medlock v. Trustees of Ind. Univ.

• Decision Date: 13 September 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:11-cv-00977-TWP-DKL
• Parties: ZACHARY MEDLOCK Plaintiff, v. THE TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, BENJAMIN MONAHAN-ESTES, in his Individual Capacity, CAITLIN CLARK, in her Individual Capacity, CHRISTOPHER KING, in His Individual Capacity, HAROLD GOLDSMITH, in his Official Capacity and KAREN HANSON, in her Official Capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana

ZACHARY MEDLOCK Plaintiff,

v. THE TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, BENJAMIN MONAHAN-ESTES, in his Individual Capacity,CAITLIN CLARK, in her Individual Capacity, CHRISTOPHER KING, in His Individual Capacity, HAROLD GOLDSMITH,in his Official Capacity and KAREN HANSON, in her Official Capacity, Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00977-TWP-DKL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

Dated: September 13, 2011

ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 8). The Plaintiff in this matter is Zachary Medlock ("Medlock"). There are six Defendants in this matter: The Trustees of Indiana University ("The Trustees"), Benjamin Monahan-Estes ("Monahan-Estes"), Caitlin Clark ("Clark"), Christopher King ("Officer King"), the Dean of Students, Harold Goldsmith ("Dean Goldsmith"), and Karen Hanson ("Provost Hanson") (collectively, "Defendants"). Medlock, a former student at Indiana University (hereinafter, "IU"), filed suit in this Court against the Defendants alleging a violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Medlock alleges that a one-year suspension from IU following the discovery of marijuana and drug paraphernalia in his university dormitory room violated hisconstitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, when resident specialists and police officers unlawfully searched his dorm room without a warrant. He also argues that he was denied procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when he was not given an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner at subsequent university disciplinary hearings.

Medlock asserts he will suffer irreparable harm due to his suspension from IU as his suspension will severely damage future collegiate endeavors as well as hurt future employment opportunities. Medlock seeks a preliminary injunction from this Court and has asked the Court to: (1) enjoin his suspension; (2) order his reinstatement to IU beginning fall semester 2011; (3) remove and expunge the bad grades that he received as a result of the suspension; (4) allow him to resume taking all of the classes he was enrolled in at the time of his suspension; and (5) remove and expunge any reference to discipline relating to the incident from his student record.

For the reasons set forth below, Medlock's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 8) is DENIED.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A preliminary injunction is "an exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it." Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 389 (7th Cir. 1984) (citation and internal quotations omitted). When a court is presented with a request for preliminary injunction, it considers multiple factors. As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized, a party seeking to obtain a preliminary injunction must demonstrate: (1) "a likelihood of success on the merits," (2) "a lack of an adequate remedy at law," and (3) "a future irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted." Reid L. v. Ill. State Bd. of Educ., 289 F.3d 1009, 1020-21 (7th Cir. 2002). The court must then balance, on a slidingscale, the irreparable harm to the moving party with the harm an injunction would cause to the opposing party. See Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S. of Am., Inc., 549 F.3d 1079, 1086 (7th Cir. 2008). The greater the likelihood of success, the less harm the moving party needs to show to obtain an injunction, and vice versa. Id. Finally, the court must consider the public interest in determining whether the injunction is to be granted or denied. See Storck USA, L.P. v. Farley Candy Co., 14 F.3d 311, 314 (7th Cir. 1994). The decision to grant or deny a request for injunctive relief, however, is not governed by a rigid, unbending formula. As the Seventh Circuit has recognized, a court must "exercise its discretion to arrive at a decision based on a subjective evaluation of the import of the various factors and a personal, intuitive sense about the nature of the case." Girl Scouts of Manitou, 549 F.3d at 1086 (citation and internal quotations omitted).

II. BACKGROUND

Medlock enrolled as a full-time student at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana during the Fall Semester of 2009 and studied in the School of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 academic years. During Medlock's sophomore year, he lived in a single occupancy unit at Willkie Residence Center ("Willkie").¹ A condition of campus residency is that students agree to the terms of a Housing and Dining Contract ("Housing Contract"). ² The Housing Contract sets forth the terms and conditions which student residents must follow in order to reside in Willkie. The Housing Contract instructed Medlock tocomply with all rules and regulations set forth in the university's Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct ("Student Conduct Code") and Your A to Z Guide To Residence Hall Living: 2010/11 ("A to Z Guide").³

A provision of the Housing Contract states that IU has the "right to enter [a student's] unit according to the procedures set forth in Your A to Z Guide to Residence Hall Living...for law enforcement purposes, as well as for custodial services, safety inspections, unit repair and maintenance, pest control, and emergency situations." In addition to the Housing Contract, the A to Z Guide states that "[a]uthorized university personnel performing safety inspections may enter a room or apartment to ensure that health, fire, and safety regulations are being maintained. Whenever possible, residents will be given at least 24-hour notice of these inspections." The A to Z Guide further provides that "the university official conducting the search is free to seize illegal materials in 'plain view'" and "[a]ll evidence seized during searches complying with the above regulations may be used in university disciplinary hearings for violations of the [Student Code of Conduct]...." The A to Z Guide also states that "[i]f an extensive search is required (i.e. opening all drawers, luggage, and locked boxes) and the student has not given permission, the university should contact the IU Police Department for a search warrant." Both the Student Conduct Code and the A to Z Guide require students to obey all state and federal laws and prohibit the unauthorized possession of illegal drugs in IU's residence centers.

On March 9, 2011, Monahan-Estes and Clark, both Resident Leadership Specialists ("Resident Specialists") at Willkie, conducted a routine safety and health inspection of the residence hall in advance of Spring Break. Notice of the inspection had been announced theprevious week to all Willkie students and on the day of the inspection, the resident specialists announced via intercom that they would be performing room-by-room safety inspections.

Monahan-Estes entered Medlock's room around 4:00 p.m., while Clark checked the room across the hall. Monahan-Estes immediately noticed a clear plastic tube of what appeared to be marijuana lying on Medlock's desk in plain view. Monahan-Estes asked Clark to join him in the room to confirm his suspicion and then called the Indiana University Police Department ("IUPD"). Officer King and Officer Collins responded to the call. Monahan-Estes opened the door and from the hallway, Officer King observed the clear plastic container of marijuana lying on a desk and smelled the odor of raw marijuana. Officer King immediately entered the room to confiscate the marijuana. Once Officer King left Medlock's room, Clark continued her safety inspection as per her responsibilities as a residential specialist. Clark observed further violations of residence center regulations; burned candles, an ashtray with spent ashes and she noticed that Medlock's closet door was ajar. Clark observed a large plant, which she believed to be marijuana, growing inside the closet.

Clark alerted Officer King to her observation, and he re-entered the room where he, too, observed the plant. At that time, Officer King exited the room in order to obtain a search warrant. Officer Collins remained in the hallway and secured the room.

After presenting facts the officer believed supported probable cause to search Medlock's dorm room, Judge Teresa Harper of the Monroe Circuit Court issued a search warrant. The warrant ordered Officer King to search Medlock's room for "narcotics, narcotic paraphernalia, any items used for the sale, use or manufacture of any narcotic...." In the meantime, Medlock had arrived back at his room and was read his Miranda rights by Officer Collins. Officer King returned with the warrant, presented it to Medlock, and Medlock assisted with the search,revealing the location of a six-foot tall marijuana plant along with a timer, electrical cord, fluorescent light and a second plastic container holding the dead root of a marijuana plant. Approximately 89 grams of marijuana, four marijuana pipes, two bongs, a vaporizer with two tubes, and two mouthpieces were found in various locations in Medlock's dormitory room. Following the search, Officer King arrested Medlock.⁴

On March 10, 2011, this incident was reported to Dean Goldsmith. On March 11, 2011, Dean Goldsmith concluded that Medlock's actions were serious enough to warrant immediate action, believing that Medlock's "continued presence on campus constituted a serious threat of harm to student or to any other person on the campus or to the property of the university or property of other persons on the university campus."⁵ Therefore, Dean Goldsmith summarily suspended Medlock and ordered him to vacate the dorm immediately. The suspension would be in effect for "at least one calendar year" from March 11, 2011. On the same day, Dean Goldsmith sent Medlock a letter outlining the decision. The letter apprised Medlock of his right...