Wagner v. Holtzapple

• Citation: 101 F.Supp.3d 462
• Decision Date: 23 April 2015
• Docket Number: No. 4:13–CV–3051.,4:13–CV–3051.
• Parties: Kevin WAGNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Julie A. HOLTZAPPLE, et. al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

101 F.Supp.3d 462

Kevin WAGNER, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Julie A. HOLTZAPPLE, et. al., Defendants.

No. 4:13–CV–3051.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed April 23, 2015.

Devon M. Jacob, Jacob Litigation, Mechanicsburg, PA, for Plaintiffs.

Amy C. Foerster, Bucknell University–Office of General Counsel, Lewisburg, PA, Maureen P. Holland, Neil J. Hamburg, Hamburg & Golden, PC, Philadelphia, PA, David L. Schwalm, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

MATTHEW W. BRANN, District Judge.

I. BACKGROUND:

This case presents a question about the constitutionality of a search and seizure in a college dormitory environment. The primary issue presented cannot be decided by the Court at the motion to dismiss stage of the proceedings, and, consequently, several of the claims will proceed to discovery.

II. DISCUSSION:

A. Procedural History

Plaintiffs, Kevin Wagner, Fraiser Etsy, and Tony Migliori, are three former students at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, who filed a complaint on December 19, 2013.¹Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 11, 2014, and a second amended complaint on July 23, 2014. ECF No. 36.

Defendants as a collective group acted in concert, but can be classified into two general categories. Defendants Julie A. Holtzapple, James R. Middleton, Michael C. Giffiths, Degg H. Stark, Susan L. Lantz, Jason D. Friedberg, Lewis A. Marrara, II, Amy A. Badal, Wayne A. Bromfield, Michael A. Smyer, John C. Bravman, and Bucknell University are all related to Bucknell and, will hereinafter be collectively referred to as the “Bucknell Defendants”). The second group of defendants are Ernest R. Ritter, III, Jeffrey A. Tice, Justin N. Rosbosch², Ryan E. King, Union County, Pennsylvania, and Montour County, Pennsylvania, and are all related to these counties and will hereinafter be referred to collectively as the “County Defendants”.

On August 6, 2014 both sets of defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. For the reasons that follow, the motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

B. Motion to Dismiss Standard

When considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court must view all allegations stated in the complaint as true and construe all inferences in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding,467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984); Kost v. Kozakiewicz,1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir.1993). However, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the [factual] allegations contained in the complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)(internal citations omitted). In ruling on such a motion, the court primarily considers the allegations of the pleading, but is not required to consider legal conclusions alleged in the complaint. Kost,1 F.3d at 183. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal,556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. At the motion to dismiss stage, the court considers whether plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence to support the allegations in the complaint. Maio v. Aetna, Inc.,221 F.3d 472, 482 (3d Cir.2000).

A complaint should only be dismissed if, accepting as true all of the allegations in the amended complaint, plaintiff has not pled enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal,556 U.S. at 663–664, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

“In considering a Rule 12(b)(6)motion, we must be mindful that federal courts require notice pleading, as opposed to the heightened standard of fact pleading.” Hellmann v. Kercher,2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54882, *4, 2008 WL 1969311, *3 (W.D.Pa. May 5, 2008)(Lancaster, J.). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8“ ‘requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds on which it rests,’ ” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,127 S.Ct. at 1964, 127 S.Ct. 1955(citing Conley v. Gibson,355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). However, even under this lower notice pleading standard, a plaintiff must do more than recite the elements of a cause of action, and then make a blanket assertion of an entitlement to relief under it. Hellmann, supra.Instead, a plaintiff must make a factual showing of his entitlement to relief by alleging sufficient facts that, when taken as true, suggest the required elements of a particular legal theory. Twombly,127 S.Ct. at 1965. “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not “shown”—“that the pleader is entitled to relief.” ” Iqbal, supra,citingFed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).

The failure-to-state-a-claim standard of Rule 12(b)(6)“streamlines litigation by dispensing with needless discovery and factfinding.” Neitzke v. Williams,490 U.S. 319, 326–27, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). A court may dismiss a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)where there is a “dispositive issue of law.” Id.at 326, 109 S.Ct. 1827. If it is beyond a doubt that the non-moving party can prove no set of facts in support of its allegations, then a claim must be dismissed “without regard to whether it is based on an outlandish legal theory or on a close but ultimately unavailing one.” Id.at 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827

C. Allegations in the Complaint

The alleged facts as set forth by Plaintiffs in the second amended complaint are as follows. Plaintiffs Kevin Wagner, Fraiser Etsy, and Tony Migliori were all Bucknell University students who resided in a fraternity house located at 64 University Avenue, Lewisburg, Union County, Pennsylvania at the time period in question.

The Bucknell Defendants.Defendant Bucknell University is a private, liberal arts university located in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Julie A. Holtzapple, James R. Middleton, Michael C. Griffiths, and Degg H. Stark are public safety officers. Jason D. Friedberg is employed as Bucknell's Chief of Police. Susan L. Lantz and Lewis A. Marrara, II are both Deans of Students. Amy A. Badal is an Assistant Dean of Students. Wayne A. Bromfield was General Counsel of Bucknell as of the date of the incident in question. Michael A. Smyer is the Provost. John C. Bravman is the President.

The County Defendants.Ernest R. Ritter, III is the Sheriff of Union County, Pennsylvania. Jeffrey A. Tice and Justin M. Rosbosch are Union County Deputy Sheriffs. Ryan E. King is a Montour County, Pennsylvania Deputy Sheriff. Defendants Union and Montour counties are located in north central Pennsylvania and maintain control over their respective Sheriff's Offices.

Plaintiffs allege that all of the named individual defendants were acting under color of state law and are sued in their respective personal capacities. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that the Bucknell University defendants, although employed by a private employer, were acting under color of state law, a claim that the Bucknell Defendants, for the most part, do not dispute.

Taking the facts alleged in the complaint as true, the narrative that unfolds is as follows. On February 16, 2012, Defendants Holtzapple, Middleton, Griffiths, Stark, Ritter, Tice, Rosbosch and King entered the Kappa Sigma Alphi Phi fraternity house, where the three Plaintiffs resided, and set off the fire alarm. The residents of the building exited the building. Defendants used the “C–CURE Access Control System³to lock the doors so that the Plaintiffs ... could not renter the buildings.” ECF No. 36 at 20. Once inside, these Defendants, along with search dogs, searched the building for three hours. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conducted a search that exceeded a “plain sight” search, in that unopened doors were opened, bookbags searched, dresser drawers searched and the space underneath beds was searched. The search resulted in the discovery of a small amount of marijuana, “a couple of bongs,” a “grinder,” a few marijuana piper, a hunting knife, a BB gun, a slingshot, and a lock picking set. Plaintiffs were never prosecuted criminally, but received internal discipline from Bucknell that required payment of a fine and community service, and, for one Plaintiff, three psychiatric sessions.

Like most universities, Bucknell has a Student Handbook (hereinafter “the handbook”). Plaintiffs assert that the handbook was not a negotiable document, but was a “take it or leave it” proposition; specifically, they allege that it was a contract of adhesion. ECF No. 36 at 13 ¶¶ 44 and 46. The salient provisions of the handbook provide as follows:

Bucknell requires all undergraduate students to live on campus in a University-owned facility or University-related fraternity house unless they receive formal approval to reside off campus or commute from home.

Campus residential facilities are the same as any private facility and cannot be entered by police without the occupant's permission or a legal search warrant.

A private room may be opened by an RA or member of the University staff if there is reasonable cause to suspect violation of the law or Student Code of Conduct is occurring.

The University reserves the right to enter your room in an emergency or if there is reasonable cause to conclude that violation of University policy, or state or federal law, is occurring.

Public Safety officers may enter your room any time they believe a crime or violation has been, is about to be, or is being committed. In most circumstances the officer will knock and announce that “Bucknell Public Safety is requesting entry.” However, exigent circumstance dictate both

...