O'Brien v. Welty, No. 13-16279 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAfter the university found that plaintiff had violated the Student Conduct Code’s prohibition on harassment and intimidation that poses a threat to others, plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of his constitutional rights including those protected by the First Amendment. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court held that California Code of Regulations, tit. 5, 41301(b)(7), which authorizes branches of California State University to discipline students for conduct that “threatens or endangers the health or safety of any person . . . including . . . intimidation [or] harassment,” is not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague. In this case, plaintiff confronted and videotaped two professors in their offices, questioning them about a poem that had been published in a supplement to the student newspaper. The court held that the regulation supported imposing discipline for plaintiff's conduct. However, the court held that plaintiff's complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim against some of the defendants. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, and remanded in an action brought by a California State University student who alleged that faculty members and administrators violated his constitutional rights, including those protected by the First Amendment, when they sanctioned him for violating the Student Conduct Code’s prohibition on harassment and intimidation that poses a threat to others. The panel held that California Code of Regulations, tit. 5, § 41301(b)(7), which authorizes branches of California State University to discipline students for conduct that “threatens or endangers the health or safety of any person . . . including . . . intimidation [or] harassment,” was not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague. The panel further held that the regulation supported imposing discipline for plaintiff’s conduct. However, the panel also held that plaintiff’s complaint alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim against some of the defendants. O’BRIEN V. WELTY 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.