Tigrett v. Rector and Visitors University of Va., Civil Action No. 3:99CV00094.

Citation97 F.Supp.2d 752
Decision Date12 May 2000
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 3:99CV00094.
PartiesHarrison Kerr TIGRETT, Plaintiff, v. THE RECTOR AND VISITORS OF the UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, et al., Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)

Clay James Summers, Charlottesville, VA, Michael D. Fitzgerald, Frank L. Watson, III, Frank L. Watson, Jr., Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell, Memphis, TN, for Plaintiff.

Susan M. Davis, Richard Croswell Kast, University of Virginia Office of General Counsel, Charlottesville, VA, for Defendants.

OPINION

MOON, District Judge.

Plaintiff Harrison Kerr Tigrett, a student at the University of Virginia ("University"), has filed this complaint against the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, University President John T. Casteen, III, University Vice-President William W. Harmon, individual members of the University's Board of Visitors, individual members of the University's Judiciary Committee, and individual members of a University Fact-Finding Panel alleging violations of his due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as his First Amendment speech rights. Defendants have moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and/or for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

FACTS

The facts in this case are similar to those this Court described in Smith v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia, 78 F.Supp.2d 533 (W.D.Va.1999), and are set forth below with modifications.

In the early morning hours of November 21, 1997, Harrison Kerr Tigrett went for a drive with four of his fraternity brothers (Bradley Kintz, Richard Smith, Wes McCluney and Wes Kaupinen). Alexander Kory, another University student who was on foot, encountered Tigrett and his friends and had "verbal interactions" with one or more of the car's occupants. Unfortunately, events escalated to the point where Kintz and Tigrett exited the car to verbally confront Kory. Smith then exited the car and attempted to calm the situation by telling Kory to go home and Kintz and Tigrett to go back to the car. Kory then directed some profanity toward Smith1 and, in a burst of anger, Smith punched Kory in the face, causing him extensive injuries to the face, jaw, and teeth.2

On December 3, 1997, Kory initiated student disciplinary charges against Tigrett, Kintz, Smith, and McCluney pursuant to the procedures of the University Judiciary Committee ("UJC"). The UJC is a student-run disciplinary body charged with handling complaints about student violations of the University's Standards of Conduct. Initially, Tigrett was charged with violating Sections 1 and 5 of the University's Standards of Conduct. Section 1 prohibits:

Physical or sexual assault of any person on University—owned or leased property or at University—sponsored or supervised functions, or conduct which threatens the health or safety of any such person or the physical or sexual assault of any University student, faculty member, or employee at the local residence of any student, faculty member or employee within the City of Charlottesville or Albemarle County.

Section 5 prohibits:

Unlawfully blocking or impeding normal pedestrian or vehicular traffic on or adjacent to University property.

Because McCluney was scheduled to graduate the following May, Vice President for Student Affairs William Harmon determined that he would not be subjected to a UJC trial and instead reprimanded him and required him to attend counseling.

A UJC hearing for Smith, Kintz and Tigrett was initially scheduled for February, 1998, but was postponed until after the disposition of pending criminal charges arising from the incident. On May 13, 1998, Tigrett pled nolo contendere to a charge of disorderly conduct in Albemarle County General District Court. The UJC hearing was then rescheduled for November 21, 1998.

The day before the rescheduled hearing was to take place, Smith, Smith's father, Tigrett, and Tigrett's student counsel attended a meeting with Harmon. While there is a dispute as to what happened next, the Court is obligated to construe the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Tigrett alleges that Harmon (at the request of the student defendants) expressed to all concerned that the November 21 hearing should not go forward, but that he first needed to confer with the University's general counsel. While Harmon was initially unable to contact the University's general counsel, he nevertheless directed Tigrett's representative to contact the UJC chairperson to instruct her that the hearing would be postponed. Shortly thereafter the University's general counsel returned Harmon's call, at which time Harmon requested all present to leave the room so that he could engage in a private conversation. Tigrett and his counsel then left to meet with another University official, while Smith and his father waited outside Harmon's office so that they could speak to him after he had finished the telephone conversation. Shortly thereafter, Tigrett was informed by Smith and his father that the University's general counsel had agreed that the hearing would be postponed. The University's general counsel later confirmed that the hearing would be postponed by speaking directly to Smith's father.

Meanwhile, the UJC held its hearing on November 21 despite the absence of Smith, Kintz and Tigrett and the protests of Tigrett's representative. The UJC found the three guilty and ordered their expulsion from the University. As to Tigrett, the panel found him guilty of violating Sections 1, 5, and 8 of the University's Standards of Conduct. Specifically, Section 8 prohibits:

Disorderly conduct on University-owned or leased property or at a University sponsored function. Disorderly conduct is defined to include acts which break the peace or are lewd, indecent or obscene and which are not constitutionally-protected speech.

Of note, Kory had not initially sought to charge Tigrett with "disorderly conduct" under the University's Standards of Conduct.

On review, Harmon referred the UJC panel's decision to the University's Judicial Review Board ("JRB"), which is charged with hearing certain appeals of UJC decisions. Tigrett also directly appealed the decision to the JRB shortly thereafter. On February 11, 1999, the JRB set aside the UJC panel's decision and remanded the matter for a new hearing. Pursuant to the remand, the UJC named a new hearing panel and scheduled a new hearing for April 17, 1999. However, that hearing was canceled when the UJC chairperson recused herself. Subsequently, the UJC determined that it was unable to hear the case in a timely manner and referred it to Harmon, who then appointed a hearing panel consisting of student, faculty and administration representatives to hear the case and make a recommendation to University President John T. Casteen, III. This panel convened a hearing on May 17, 1999, at which Tigrett appeared, witnesses were called, evidence was presented, and factual findings were made. The panel found Tigrett guilty of Violating Sections 1 and 8, and then recommended that Tigrett and Kintz be suspended for one semester (not to include a summer session) and seventy-five hours of community service. As for Smith, the panel recommended that he be suspended for two consecutive semesters that could include a summer session. The panel then forwarded its recommendations to Casteen.

Smith's student counsel wrote to President Casteen on May 28, 1999, urging him "to modify that portion of the panel's recommendation which asks that these young men be suspended from school." Casteen reviewed the panel's report and recommendations as well as the entire transcript of the hearing testimony and affirmed the findings of guilt reached by the panel.3 However, he modified Tigrett's recommended sanctions by imposing a suspension for one full academic year (not to include a summer session), with expulsion in abeyance pending any further violation of the University's Standards of Conduct while a student of the University and with seventy-five hours of pro-bono community service. Casteen similarly increased the sanction imposed on Smith to a suspension for two full academic years. Moreover, Casteen deferred final judgment on the issue pending an appeal of his decision to the JRB, but noted that he had "ultimate and non-delegable statutory responsibility" over the case that he did not wish to waive. The JRB denied Tigrett's appeal on June 22, 1999.

Tigrett then filed this lawsuit on October 22, 1999. Specifically, in Count One Tigrett alleges, among other things, that Harmon and various UJC members4 violated his due process rights when Harmon represented that the November UJC hearing would be postponed, but the UJC proceeded with the hearing in his absence anyway. Count One also alleges that Tigrett's due process rights were violated when the University tried and convicted him of violating Section 8 without reasonable notice. Count Two names Casteen, Harmon, and members of the University's Board of Visitors ("BOV")5, claiming that the UJC was acting under their control and that they had failed to properly instruct, train, supervise, and control the UJC Defendants in the performance of their duties. Count Three claims that various members of the May panel violated Tigrett's rights generally and with regard to his convictions under Sections 1 and 8 specifically. Count Four names Casteen and Harmon as their actions relate to the May hearing. Count Five refers to members of the Board of Visitors and claims they failed to properly instruct, train, supervise, and control Casteen. Count Six names Casteen plus the individual BOV members and claims that they failed to properly instruct, train, supervise, and control Harmon. Count Seven claims that the individual UJC members conspired to violate Tigrett's civil rights in violation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Keitz v. Unnamed Sponsors of Cocaine Research Study, Civil Action No. 3:11–cv–00054.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • 16 Diciembre 2011
    ...have held that public state universities qualify as arms of the state under the Eleventh Amendment); Tigrett v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 97 F.Supp.2d 752, 756 (W.D.Va.2000) (holding that the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia constitute an arm of the state and, thus......
  • Z.J. v. Vanderbilt Univ., 3:17-cv-00936
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee
    • 19 Diciembre 2018
    ...the substantive insufficiency of this claim, it has been effectively waived. See, e.g., Tigrett v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 97 F.Supp.2d 752, 762 (W.D. Va. 2000) (finding that where student had an opportunity to question members of disciplinary panel concerning alleged bias but ......
  • Sigma Lambda Upsilon/Señoritas Latinas Unidas Sorority, Inc. v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • 30 Noviembre 2020
    ...v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429, 117 S.Ct. 900, 137 L.Ed.2d 55 (1997), including UVA. See Tigrett v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 97 F. Supp. 2d 752, 756 (W.D. Va. 2000) (Moon, J.) ("This Court has already held that the Rector and Visitors of the University, as an instrumentality of the......
  • Tigrett v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. Of Va
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • 1 Marzo 2001
    ...were consolidated for purposes of discovery and trial. Pursuant to this Court's previous ruling in Tigrett v. Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 97 F.Supp.2d 752 (W.D.Va. 2000), and the Stipulation and Order of July 13, 2000, making the findings in Tigrett, and the earlier rulings in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT