Matthew W. Brann, United States District Judge
Defendants moved to dismiss John Doe's Complaint. For the reasons that follow, that motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND1
In August 2014, John Doe and Jane Roe2 were both undergraduate students at The Pennsylvania State University's ("PSU's") University Park Campus.3 In *443the early morning hours of August 10, 2014, a sexual encounter occurred between the two of them while they were alone in Mr. Doe's dorm room.4 Mr. Doe maintains that the encounter was consensual.5 Ms. Roe, however, maintains that it was not,6 and consequently filed sexual assault complaints with PSU's Office of Student Conduct as well as University Police.7
A. The Investigative Model
PSU conducted an inquiry into Ms. Doe's complaint using a procedure it dubbed the "Investigative Model."8
Pursuant to this model, sexual assault complaints are assigned to an "Investigator," who interviews the complainant and respondent separately (as well as any other "possible witnesses") in order "to collect information regarding the allegation."9 This information is gathered into an "Investigative Packet," which the parties may review and respond to.10 These responses may prompt the Investigator to "address and correct ... factual inaccuracies, misunderstandings, etc." in the Investigative Packet, and may also prompt him or her to "conduct additional investigation as appropriate."11
If the Investigator decides to revise the packet as a result of such additional investigation, the parties are to be given another chance to "review and respond to" it.12 When this iterative process is complete, the Investigator will "finalize[ ]" the packet and decide whether or not "the acquired information reasonably supports a Code of Conduct violation."13 If it does, "charges will be assigned"; if it does not, "the case will be closed."14
If charges are assigned, both parties are given another opportunity to respond, which responses are forwarded along with the Investigative Packet to the school's "Title IX Decision Panel."15 This panel, made up PSU faculty and staff members,16 uses the preponderance of the evidence standard to decide whether the respondent was "responsible" for the charged conduct.17 The panel also decides on the "appropriate sanction[ ]," if applicable.18 These decisions are based entirely on the paper record before the panel; no in-person testimony is permitted by either the complainant or the respondent.19
B. PSU's Investigation of the August 10, 2018 Encounter
After Ms. Roe filed her complaint, Defendant Danny Shaha, in his capacity as Senior Director of PSU's Office of Student *444Conduct, initiated disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Doe.20 Defendant Spencer Peters (a former University Police investigator who was involved in the initial criminal investigation of Ms. Roe's complaint21 ) was assigned as the case's Investigator, and he was-according to a letter sent to Mr. Doe from the Office of Student Affairs-to be "considered a neutral fact finder."22
Pursuant to the Investigative Model's procedures, Mr. Peters conducted a series of separate, alternating meetings with Ms. Roe and Mr. Doe, during which the parties spoke about the sexual encounter and commented on the other's previous statements.23 At two of these meetings, Mr. Peters directed "a few follow[-]up questions" to Ms. Roe "at the request of" Mr. Doe.24 Mr. Peters also met with several witnesses-including Ms. Roe's roommate and a nurse who examined Ms. Roe after the incident-who spoke to Mr. Peters about their observations of, and interactions with, Ms. Roe and Mr. Doe before and after the sexual encounter.25 Based on his investigation, Mr. Peters "determined [that] there was enough information to reasonably support" charging Mr. Doe with nonconsensual sexual activity.26 As a result, the written materials were sent to the Office of Student Conduct.27 Karen Feldbaum, in her capacity as associate director of that office, forwarded the materials to a Title IX Decision Panel.28
When the panel met to discuss Mr. Doe's case on December 17, 2015, its members received copies of several additional documents from Ms. Feldbaum, presumably to guide the panel while it was making its decision.29 One of these documents was titled "A Decision-Making Model for Sexual Misconduct Cases," which defined "sexual misconduct" and noted that "the focus of concern" for such cases "is whether consent was expressed in a context in which it can be considered valid."30 Another document defined the preponderance of the evidence standard, noting that "[i]f the panel believes that the information provided indicates that it is more likely than not that a violation occurred, then [it] should find the student responsible for the violation," even if the panel is "not ... completely convinced," or "ha[s] consideration reservation."31 And a third document indicated that "the percentage of false reports [of sexual assault] is 2%."32
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Matthew W. Brann, United States District Judge
Defendants moved to dismiss John Doe's Complaint. For the reasons that follow, that motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND1
In August 2014, John Doe and Jane Roe2 were both undergraduate students at The Pennsylvania State University's ("PSU's") University Park Campus.3 In *443the early morning hours of August 10, 2014, a sexual encounter occurred between the two of them while they were alone in Mr. Doe's dorm room.4 Mr. Doe maintains that the encounter was consensual.5 Ms. Roe, however, maintains that it was not,6 and consequently filed sexual assault complaints with PSU's Office of Student Conduct as well as University Police.7
A. The Investigative Model
PSU conducted an inquiry into Ms. Doe's complaint using a procedure it dubbed the "Investigative Model."8
Pursuant to this model, sexual assault complaints are assigned to an "Investigator," who interviews the complainant and respondent separately (as well as any other "possible witnesses") in order "to collect information regarding the allegation."9 This information is gathered into an "Investigative Packet," which the parties may review and respond to.10 These responses may prompt the Investigator to "address and correct ... factual inaccuracies, misunderstandings, etc." in the Investigative Packet, and may also prompt him or her to "conduct additional investigation as appropriate."11
If the Investigator decides to revise the packet as a result of such additional investigation, the parties are to be given another chance to "review and respond to" it.12 When this iterative process is complete, the Investigator will "finalize[ ]" the packet and decide whether or not "the acquired information reasonably supports a Code of Conduct violation."13 If it does, "charges will be assigned"; if it does not, "the case will be closed."14
If charges are assigned, both parties are given another opportunity to respond, which responses are forwarded along with the Investigative Packet to the school's "Title IX Decision Panel."15 This panel, made up PSU faculty and staff members,16 uses the preponderance of the evidence standard to decide whether the respondent was "responsible" for the charged conduct.17 The panel also decides on the "appropriate sanction[ ]," if applicable.18 These decisions are based entirely on the paper record before the panel; no in-person testimony is permitted by either the complainant or the respondent.19
B. PSU's Investigation of the August 10, 2018 Encounter
After Ms. Roe filed her complaint, Defendant Danny Shaha, in his capacity as Senior Director of PSU's Office of Student *444Conduct, initiated disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Doe.20 Defendant Spencer Peters (a former University Police investigator who was involved in the initial criminal investigation of Ms. Roe's complaint21 ) was assigned as the case's Investigator, and he was-according to a letter sent to Mr. Doe from the Office of Student Affairs-to be "considered a neutral fact finder."22
Pursuant to the Investigative Model's procedures, Mr. Peters conducted a series of separate, alternating meetings with Ms. Roe and Mr. Doe, during which the parties spoke about the sexual encounter and commented on the other's previous statements.23 At two of these meetings, Mr. Peters directed "a few follow[-]up questions" to Ms. Roe "at the request of" Mr. Doe.24 Mr. Peters also met with several witnesses-including Ms. Roe's roommate and a nurse who examined Ms. Roe after the incident-who spoke to Mr. Peters about their observations of, and interactions with, Ms. Roe and Mr. Doe before and after the sexual encounter.25 Based on his investigation, Mr. Peters "determined [that] there was enough information to reasonably support" charging Mr. Doe with nonconsensual sexual activity.26 As a result, the written materials were sent to the Office of Student Conduct.27 Karen Feldbaum, in her capacity as associate director of that office, forwarded the materials to a Title IX Decision Panel.28
When the panel met to discuss Mr. Doe's case on December 17, 2015, its members received copies of several additional documents from Ms. Feldbaum, presumably to guide the panel while it was making its decision.29 One of these documents was titled "A Decision-Making Model for Sexual Misconduct Cases," which defined "sexual misconduct" and noted that "the focus of concern" for such cases "is whether consent was expressed in a context in which it can be considered valid."30 Another document defined the preponderance of the evidence standard, noting that "[i]f the panel believes that the information provided indicates that it is more likely than not that a violation occurred, then [it] should find the student responsible for the violation," even if the panel is "not ... completely convinced," or "ha[s] consideration reservation."31 And a third document indicated that "the percentage of false reports [of sexual assault] is 2%."32
Pursuant to the procedures detailed above, neither Ms. Roe nor Mr. Doe were permitted to appear before the panel, which issued its decision finding Mr. Doe "responsible" for the charged conduct less than a week later.33 As a result of that finding, Mr. Doe was suspended from PSU for two semesters and lost his on-campus *445housing privileges.34
Mr. Doe instituted this suit against PSU, Mr. Peters, Mr. Shaha, and Ms. Feldbaum on January 23, 2018.35 His single-claim complaint argues that various aspects of the Investigative Model-as designed and as implemented in his case, individually and in the aggregate-violated his rights under the Due Process Clause.36 He seeks (1) declarations that PSU's Investigative Model was unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to his case; (2) injunctions requiring PSU to reverse the panel's decision, expunge his disciplinary records, and reinstate him as a student in good standing; and (3) monetary damages.37
Defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Doe's complaint on March 26, 2018.38 Their supporting brief argues: (1) that this Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Doe's claims for injunctive relief; (2) that Mr. Doe has failed to state a claim under the Due Process Clause; and (3) that the claims against the individual defendants are redundant or barred by qualified immunity.39
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,40 a court assumes the truth of all factual allegations in the plaintiff's complaint and draws all inferences in favor of that party;41 the court does not, however, assume the truth of any of the complaint's legal conclusions.42 If a complaint's factual allegations, so treated, state a claim that is plausible-i.e. , if they allow the court to infer the defendant's liability-the motion is denied; if they fail to do so, the motion is granted.43
B. Whether This Court Has Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Over Mr. Doe's Claims for Injunctive Relief
Defendants argue that Mr. Doe's claims for injunctive relief should be dismissed because this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over them. Specifically, Defendants argues that there is no active case or controversy between the parties vis-à-vis Mr. Doe's request for injunctive relief, and that Mr. Doe cannot demonstrate an injury in fact capable of resolution through such injunctive relief. In support of this argument, Defendants note (1) that Mr. Doe's suspension period is over and that, according to a declaration executed by Ms. Feldbaum,44 Mr. Doe would be "considered a student in good standing" if he were to re-enroll at PSU; (2) that there is no mark on Mr. Doe's academic transcript referencing the disciplinary action taken against him; (3) that Mr. Doe has not alleged that he may be "subjected to further investigation or disciplinary action"
*446as a result of the August 10, 2014 incident; and (4) that Mr. Doe "has not shown how [his] previous sanction or any adjudication associated with it has concretely harmed or has the potential to harm him."45
Defendants' arguments are largely without merit. First, while Mr. Doe admits that Ms. Feldbaum's declaration moots his request to be reinstated at PSU in good standing,46 his Complaint does not seek to terminate his suspension, which has unquestionably already run its course. Second, Mr. Doe is requesting alteration of his disciplinary file, not his academic transcript. Third, Mr. Doe is not seeking injunctive relief against "further investigation or disciplinary action," but is instead seeking to eliminate the record of the consequences of past investigation and disciplinary action. And fourth, PSU undoubtedly keeps records of its disciplinary proceedings, including those proceedings' results and consequences, the existence of which, Mr. Doe alleges, "sullies his reputation and jeopardizes his future livelihood";47 Mr. Doe, then, has alleged adequate, actual, and concrete harm.48
This Court, therefore, has subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Doe's claims for injunctive relief.
C. Whether Mr. Doe Has Stated a Claim Under the Due Process Clause
Defendants argue that the investigation into the alleged nonconsensual sexual activity committed by Mr. Doe was constitutionally sufficient and that, therefore, he has failed to state a claim for violation of his procedural due process rights.49 Mr. Doe, conversely, argues that the Investigative Model's use during his disciplinary proceedings failed to adequately safeguard the property interest he had in his PSU education as well as the liberty interest he had in his reputation. Among other things, Mr. Doe takes issue with the fact that the panel heard no live testimony from him, Ms. Roe, or any other witness, which necessarily eliminated not only his opportunity to speak personally to the panel, but also his opportunity to conduct any sort of cross-examination of Ms. Roe in front of it.
Defendants do not dispute the fact that Mr. Doe had a property interest in continuing his education at PSU and a liberty interest in his reputation, nor could they.50 Defendants also do not dispute that the *447Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment places certain limits on how PSU, as state-sponsored school, could deprive Mr. Doe of those interests.51 The question, of course, "remains what process is due"52 -i.e. , what steps PSU needed to take before adjudicating Mr. Doe "responsible" for nonconsensual sexual activity and suspending him for a year.
In Goss v. Lopez , the United States Supreme Court determined that "students facing suspension [from public schools] must be given some kind of notice and afforded some kind of hearing."53 In that case, where students were facing suspensions of up to ten days, the court specifically held that the Due Process Clause required "that the student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story."54 The Supreme Court noted, however, "that the timing and content of the notice and the nature of the hearing" in other cases "will depend on appropriate accommodation of the competing interests involved,"
*44855 specifically indicating that "[l]onger suspensions or expulsions for the remainder of the school term, or permanently, may require more formal procedures."56
When deciding "what process is due" in student disciplinary proceedings, courts interpreting and applying Goss have utilized the familiar three-part test from Mathews v. Eldridge .57 Those courts have therefore considered (1) the students' "private interest[s] that will be affected by the official action"; (2) the schools' interest, "including the function involved and fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail"; and (3) the accuracy of existing procedures and "the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards."58
As noted, Mr. Doe's private interests are his continued education at PSU as well as his reputation. The Supreme Court has already noted that a ten-day suspension is "a serious event";59 Mr. Doe's year-long suspension, therefore, is correspondingly more grievous.60 And the potential damage to Mr. Doe's reputation is at least equally weighty, if not more so-after all, in addition to a tarnished disciplinary record, he is also facing the stigma of being labeled "responsible" for engaging in nonconsensual sexual intercourse.61
PSU, on the other hand, seeks to maintain a safe environment for its students-with an emphasis on the word "students." PSU's mission, after all, is foundationally educational. Although PSU has an interest in maintaining discipline and order on its *449campuses, that interest is a means to its ultimately pedagogic end, and every dollar spent regulating and investigating its students' behavior is a dollar not spent on teaching, learning, or scholarship.62
Complimenting this interest in discipline, however, is PSU's interest in securing accurate resolutions of student complaints like the one at issue here. PSU's educational mission is, of course, frustrated if it allows dangerous students to remain on its campuses. Its mission is equally stymied, however, if PSU ejects innocent students who would otherwise benefit from, and contribute to, its academic environment.63
Under PSU's Investigative Model, all of the testimony offered in this matter-Mr. Doe's, Ms. Roe's, and the witnesses'-was filtered by Mr. Peters through his Investigative Packet. That testimony appears only in paraphrased form, with virtually no actual quotes, with no indication of how Mr. Peters edited the individuals' statements to him. While it does appear that Mr. Peters directed some questions from Mr. Doe to Ms. Roe during the interviews, it is unclear whether any of Mr. Doe's questions went unasked or unanswered, and unclear whether (or how) those questions were rephrased. On top of all that, there do not appear to be any guidelines in PSU's Code of Conduct & Student Conduct *450Procedures guiding Mr. Peters in his task or cabining his discretion. When the panel determined Mr. Doe's responsibility and sanction, it was relying solely on the Investigative Packet and its written responses.
Mr. Doe's main objection to this paper-only Investigative Model is that it prohibited him from telling his story directly to the panel, and from challenging Ms. Roe's version of events before that panel. In Goss , the Supreme Court "stop[ed] short" of requiring "trial-type procedures," such as live testimony and cross-examination, in every student disciplinary case.64 Other courts, in distinguishable disciplinary situations, have also hesitated to impose such requirements.65 In a case like this, however, where everyone agrees on virtually all salient facts except one-i.e. , whether or not Ms. Roe consented to sexual activity with Mr. Doe-there is really only one consideration for the decisionmaker: credibility. After all, there were only two witnesses to the incident, with no other documentary evidence of the sexual encounter itself. As a result, in this Court's view, the Investigative Model's virtual embargo on the panel's ability to assess that credibility raises constitutional concerns.66 Consequently, *451while this Court is consistently "mindful of [the Supreme Court's] admonition [that j]udicial interposition in the operation of the public school system of the Nation raises problems requiring care and restraint,"67 Defendants' motion to dismiss Mr. Doe's due process claim for a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted will be denied.
D. Whether the Individual Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity
Mr. Shaha, Ms. Feldbaum, and Mr. Peters argue that Mr. Doe's claim against them should be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds.
Qualified immunity protects "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law."68 As the complicated analysis in the last subsection of this opinion demonstrates,69 it cannot be said that Mr. Doe's right to personally appear before the panel and question Ms. Roe was "clearly established."70 Therefore, this Court will dismiss the individual capacity claims against Mr. Shaha, Ms. Feldbaum, and Mr. Peters.71
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Mr. Doe's request for an injunction requiring PSU to reinstate him as a student in good standing will be dismissed as moot, and all claims against Mr. Shaha, Ms. Feldbaum, and Mr. Peters will be dismissed with prejudice. Mr. Doe's claim against PSU, however, will survive.
An appropriate Order follows.
The Investigative Model's problems are compounded by the ex parte documents given to the panel by Ms. Feldbaum. See Newsome , 842 F.2d at 927 (holding that the student-plaintiff was denied due process "when the superintendent disclosed to the school board, during [the board's] closed deliberations, new evidence which had not been presented during the open hearing at which [the student-plaintiff] and his attorney were present.").