Patton v. Ind. Univ. Bd. of Trs.
| Docket Number | 1:20-cv-00699-TWP-MJD |
| Decision Date | 29 August 2022 |
| Parties | DAVEN A. PATTON, Plaintiff, v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, LORI REESOR, INDIANA UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT Consolidated Party in 120-cv-1583-JRS-MJD, MONROE COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE Consolidated Defendant in 120-cv-1583-JRS-MJD, REBECCA A. SCHUML Consolidated Defendant in 120-cv-1583-JRS-MJD, BOBBY THOMPSON Consolidated Defendant in 120-cv-1583-JRS-MJD, and JEFF KEHR Consolidated Defendant in 120-cv-1583-JRS-MJD, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
This matter is before the Court on Motions to Dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by Defendants Indiana University Board of Trustees ("IU"), Lori Reesor ("Reesor"), the Indiana University Police Department ("IUPD") Rebecca A. Schmuhl[1]("Schmuhl") (IU, Reesor, IUPD and Schmuhl, collectively, the "IU Defendants") (Filing No. 102); the Monroe County Prosecutor's Office ("Prosecutor's Office"), Jeff Kehr ("Kehr") (Prosecutor's Office and Kehr together, the ) (Filing No. 112), and Bobby Thompson ("Thompson") (Filing No. 105); (all defendants collectively, "Defendants"). Pro se plaintiff Daven A. Patton ("Patton") initiated this action against Defendants for their alleged violation of numerous federal statutes-42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VI"), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the Rehabilitation Act ("Rehabilitation Act")-as well as for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and defamation. After Patton amended his Complaint four times, Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss, asking the Court to dismiss each of the claims asserted in Patton's Fourth Amended Complaint (Filing No. 91-1). For the following reasons, the Court grants the State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and grants in part and denies in part the IU Defendants' and Thompson's Motions to Dismiss.
The following facts are not necessarily objectively true, but as required when reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draws all inferences in favor of Patton as the non-moving party. See Bielanski v. Cnty. of Kane, 550 F.3d 632, 633 (7th Cir. 2008).
Patton initiated this action following his arrest and prosecution for terroristic mischief in 2016 and subsequent suspension from Indiana University Bloomington (the "University"), the denial of his petition for readmission to the University in 2018, and his arrest and prosecution for felony intimidation in 2018. Patton alleges the denial of his petition for readmission and 2018 arrest and prosecution were motivated by disability discrimination and retaliation for his First Amendment activities regarding his 2016 suspension, arrest, and prosecution. He brings claims against Indiana University Board of Trustees ("IU") as the representative body of the political subdivision of Indiana University; Ressor in her individual capacity as Vice Provost of IU; IUPD as a political subdivision of the University; Schmuhl individually and as an officer of IUPD; Thompson individually and in his official capacity as an officer of IUPD; the Monroe County Prosecutor's Office; and Kehr in his individual and official capacity as a Deputy Prosecutor.
On March 3, 2016, Patton was a junior at the University when he placed a box containing books and his student identification card outside of a University building. On the box, Patton wrote "Call the bomb squad, because this shit is mindblowing" (Filing No. 91-1 at ¶ 91). Predictably, someone reported the suspicious package, and the IUPD investigated it as a bomb threat. Later that evening, several IUPD officers entered and searched Patton's apartment and arrested him. Patton was charged with terroristic mischief, although the charges were later dismissed without prejudice. Id. at ¶¶ 25, 91. On March 8, 2016, IU suspended Patton, stating he posed a danger to himself or others. Id. at ¶¶ 17-18. Patton was permitted to apply for readmission on or after March 6, 2017. Id. at ¶ 20.
In October 2017, Patton began sending emails to University officials criticizing his 2016 arrest and prosecution. On October 26, 2017, he sent an email to Vice Provost, Reesor, claiming IUPD's response to the bomb threat incident violated the Clery Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f), because IUPD failed to send safety alerts regarding the suspicious package, and did not follow certain security protocols while searching his apartment. Id. at 50. Patton sent another email to Reesor on October 28, 2017, titled in which Patton compared his arrest to an incident at Purdue University, in which a student was arrested after leaving a "suspicious package" outside the campus visitor center. Id. at 52. Patton sent another email later that day quoting the Clery Act and again asserting that the IUPD had violated the Clery Act. Id. at 54-56. On March 2, 2016, Patton emailed IU that the United States Department of Education ("DOE") would be investigating IU for the alleged violations. Id. at ¶ 26. On March 3 and 4, 2018, Patton forwarded to a DOE official and Reesor, respectively, a March 2016 email from a University student advocate group identifying what Patton describes as "abnormalities" in his 2016 suspension. Id. at 58.
A few days later, on March 12, 2018, Patton submitted a petition for readmission to the University. Id. at 60-64. He emailed his petition to IU and copied several DOE officials on the email. Patton's petition detailed his 2016 arrest and again criticized the IUPD's conduct on the evening of his arrest. He wrote about how he developed post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") as a result of his arrest, but that he had worked with a therapist to overcome it. Id. Patton also submitted a letter from his therapist describing the progress he had made. Id. In his reinstatement petition, Patton maintained that the box of books was objectively not suspicious or threatening, and that the severity of IUPD's response and criminal charges were based on his race. Id.
On March 23, 2018, Patton sent yet another email to Reesor regarding the IUPD's alleged violations of the Clery Act, titled "Activists, student groups, and the department of education are on my side". Id. at 66-67. Three days later, on March 26, 2018, Reesor denied Patton's petition for readmission. Id. at ¶ 32. Reesor's denial letter stated Patton could submit another petition on or after May 2019, but that to be considered for readmission, Patton would need to continue seeing a counselor and submit a psycho-social assessment from a licensed mental health professional. Id. at ¶ 32. Patton responded the same day, claiming that the denial of his readmission was discriminatory. Id. at 82. Patton stated he intended to forward the denial of his application to the DOE Office of Civil Rights ("OCR") and the DOE Financial Student Aid Office's enforcement group. Id. at 81-82.
Over the few next months, Patton sent approximately forty emails to University officials and the DOE. On March 27, 2018, he emailed a complaint against IU to the OCR, stating he believes he was "the victim of continuing and ongoing and discriminatory practices" by IU. Id. at 77-82. The next day, Patton sent three emails to Reesor regarding the OCR complaint, and in response, Reesor instructed Patton to direct his future emails to IU's counsel, Aimee Oestreich ("Oestreich"). Id. at 84-85. Patton then sent several emails in an attempt to informally resolve his OCR complaint with IU. On March 29, 2018, he emailed Oestreich, copying Reesor, offering to drop his OCR complaint and send IU a psycho-social examination in exchange for IU's agreement to readmit him and remove the suspension notation from his transcript. Id. at 87. On April 10, 2018, Patton sent another email urging that he and IU reach an agreement before the OCR began its investigation. Id. at 88. He followed up on April 14, 2018, giving IU until April 21, 2018 to accept his settlement offer. Id. at 92. Having received no response by April 21, 2018, Patton indicated he would be proceeding with his OCR complaint. Id. at 93.
The emails Patton sent over the next several weeks continued to discuss his Clery Act complaint, his OCR complaint, racial discrimination, and other political topics. After May 7, 2018 however, Patton began using more extreme and inflammatory language in his emails, often attaching propaganda images relating to communism, fascism, and racism. Id. at 113-155. Patton alleges his emails were an attempt to "troll" IU. He recites several dictionary definitions of "trolling," including "to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content." Troll, Merriam-Webster Dictionary (11th ed. 2020).
Id. at 138. Near the end of the email, Patton says ...
To continue reading
Request your trial