Robinson v. Davis

• Citation: 447 F.2d 753
• Decision Date: 08 September 1971
• Docket Number: No. 14531.,14531.
• Parties: Richard ROBINSON, Appellant, v. Grier DAVIS et al., Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

447 F.2d 753 (1971)

Richard ROBINSON, Appellant, v. Grier DAVIS et al., Appellees.

No. 14531.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued December 8, 1970.

Decided September 8, 1971.

George S. Daly, Jr., Charlotte, N. C. (Norman B. Smith, Greensboro, N. C., on the brief), for appellant.

Ann H. Phillips, Asheville, N. C. (Robert R. Williams, Jr., and Williams, Morris & Golding, Asheville, N. C., on the brief), for appellees.

Before BOREMAN, BRYAN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.

BOREMAN, Circuit Judge:

This appeal by a student¹ at Montreat-Anderson College, from the dismissal of a complaint brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201 and 2202, requires analysis of the concept of "state action." Mr. Justice Clark observed in Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 722, 81 S.Ct. 856, 6 L.Ed.2d 45 (1961), that the invocation of this constitutional precept against the deprivation of certain constitutional rights of an individual, by means of "state action," depended upon the existence of appropriate facts and circumstances. Only by an assessment of the facts and by a balancing of the incident circumstances of the particular case, can we determine the significance of any non-obvious involvement of the State in private conduct.

I

Montreat-Anderson (hereafter "College"), a junior college with a student body of approximately 480, is a private educational institution owned and operated by the Presbyterian Church of the South (hereafter "Church"). The College and the Mountain Retreat Association (the latter hereafter "Association"), also wholly owned by the Church, are located upon a tract of land, once owned solely by the Church, at the foot of the Black Mountain Range, northwest of the town of Black Mountain, North Carolina. Both the College and the Association, separable legal entities, hold title to the land upon which they are located. Over the years the Church has sold from the original tract numerous lots to its members and others for summer residences and to the faculty and staff of the College and the Association for permanent homes. In 1967 the North Carolina General Assembly passed an Act making this entire area a municipal corporation and designating it as the town of Montreat (hereinafter "Town").

Since a high percentage of the property in the Town is tax exempt insufficient monies are available to fund the usual municipal services; consequently the Town has a contract with the Association pursuant to which the latter organization provides these municipal services. As partial recompense the Town pays 95 percent of its small tax levy to the Association. The Town has no paid employees; it does have an unsalaried Board of Commissioners which functions as an administrative body.

Various defendants, whose roles in this case are involved, occupy the following positions:

Grier Davis — President of the College and of the Association;

William L. Schwantes, Sr. — Business Manager of the College, the Association and the Town, Security Officer for the College and for the Association, and Chief of Police of the Town;

Peter Post — Security Officer for the College and for the Association, a Policeman for the Town, and a laborer for the College and for the Association;

Jack Wood — a Student of and Security Officer for the College, and a Policeman for the Town;

Chris Maney — a Student of the College, a Security Officer for the College and for the Association, and a Police Officer for the Town;

Morry Stanton — a Student of the College, a Security Officer for the College and for the Association, and a Police Officer for the Town.

II

In recent years there has been a proliferation in the usage of drugs by students at the College. Accordingly the Student Handbook of the College for the year 1969-1970 contained a regulation² specifically designed to meet this disquieting development.

During the fall of 1970, an agent of the State Bureau of Investigation conferred with College Security Officer Peter Post, and informed him unequivocally that a number of students of the College were engaged in the use and sale of narcotic drugs. Post subsequently relayed this information to Donald Mitchell, Dean of the College. The ensuing investigation resulted in the promulgation by the Administrative Committee of the College of another regulation³ admonishing students against the use of drugs. The College's Honor Court, comprised mainly of students and normally having jurisdiction of violations of the drug regulations, abdicated this responsibility in favor of the Administrative Committee.⁴ From information supplied by the State Bureau of Investigation and several confidential informants as to the names (the plaintiff being named among them) of students engaged in using, buying and selling drugs on the campus, it was manifest to Dean Mitchell and Mr. Post that the extent of drug usage at the College was alarming. Consequently, Dean Mitchell called a meeting of the Administrative Committee for the night of January 14, 1970, for a more extensive probe into the drug activities on the College campus.

A list of students to be called before the Administrative Committee during this meeting was compiled by Dean Mitchell and Security Officer Post. This list contained the names of those students reportedly involved in the use and exchange of drugs on the campus and those students who could conceivably furnish additional information to the college authorities concerning the drug problem. Plaintiff, Robinson, who reputedly had been selling drugs to other students at the College, was named on this list. Each of the College Security Officers Jack Wood, Chris Maney and Morry Stanton was given a sub-list and requested to notify the students named thereon to appear before the Administrative Committee.

Security officers were instructed to ask the students to appear in a certain classroom in Gaither Hall, a college facility, to confer with the Administrative Committee; these officers were further directed to merely request that the students appear, giving the time and place of the hearing, instructing students to bring books or reading material for use while they awaited appearance before the Committee; that, in the event any student refused to come, such refusal was to be reported to the Dean of the College. Some of the students on the list received notification of the meeting from students other than those acting as security officers.

The record clearly reflects the adherence of the security officers to their instructions. No mention of arrest was made and the students were permitted to visit their dormitory rooms to secure books or other articles of personal property for use during the time they might be waiting to appear before the Committee. The security officers were attired in Town of Montreat police uniforms, with side arms, furnished by the Town. It appears from the record that the security officers normally wear the same uniform whether acting as town policemen or as security officers.

Two classrooms in Gaither Hall were used for the meeting, one of which was occupied by the Administrative Committee and was designated as a hearing room; the other was utilized as a waiting room for the students. Mr. Charles Wilson, Director of Athletics for the College, and Mrs. Thomas Crumpler, Nurse for the College, were in charge of the waiting room. Some of the students asked if they could leave prior to appearing before the Committee; they were advised that they were free to do so, but that such action would be reported to the Dean and that it might conceivably result in disciplinary action against them. Defendants Post and Schwantes assisted the Administrative Committee in questioning the students and Wood, Maney and Stanton assisted in supervising the students in the waiting room during the hearing. Student defendants, Bob Blair, President of the Student Government, Jerry McDade, Vice-President of the Honor Court, Donald White, President of the Inter-Dormitory Council, and Lee Gaunt, Secretary of the Honor Court, sat with the Administrative Committee on the evening of January 14.

The evidence reveals that the plaintiff, Robinson, was questioned for approximately twenty minutes in the hearing room. Neither he, nor any other student has been arrested or indicted as a result of the hearing or the circumstances surrounding it. Subsequent to the meeting of the Administrative Committee, twelve students were disciplined by the College, six of whom, Robinson among them, were not asked to return for the second semester. The term "not asked to return" does not mean expelled; only those who were invited at the end of a semester could, according to custom, return for the following semester.

III

Robinson and one Leon Rippy originally initiated this suit as a class action on behalf of numerous students at the College.⁵ Alleging violation of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, they invoked the court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 1343(3). Three forms of relief were sought: (1) a declaratory judgment that the disputed actions of the college officials were illegal since they were under color of state law; (2) a permanent injunction against repetition of such actions with respect to the plaintiffs and members of the class; and, (3) monetary damages. The action was tried by the district judge.⁶ He concluded, in essence, that the evidence failed to show action "under color of any State law, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage" as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), and dismissed the complaint.⁷

Robinson, alone, has appealed, maintaining that the procedures used by the College to request the presence of certain students in Gaither Hall and in the subsequent hearing involved state action.

IV

We perceive no sufficient basis for holding that the action of the college officials in requesting the presence of certain students at the hearing and in subsequently questioning them...