Zhao v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University et al, No. 7:2018cv00189 - Document 94 (W.D. Va. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 10/15/2018. (ck)

Download PDF
IN T H E U N ITED STATE S D IST RICT CO U RTCLERK'@OFFPC:U@ pjc conpr Arqx dKiyy, FO R TH E W E STERN D ISTM CT O F W RG IN IA FILK ROAN OKE DIW SION YU N SON G ZH AO ggï jç zgjj JD Q D > acLcM ay: CLERK Plaintiffy Case N o.7:18cv00189 VIR GIN IA PO LYTE CH N IC IN STITU TE AN D STATE U N IVE RSIW ,:1Pk, - By:H on.M ichaelF.U rbansld ClziefUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendants. M E M O M N D U M O PIN IO N In thethird iteration oflniscom plaint,plainéffYunsong T% ellam y''Zhao bringsthis actionagainstVitginiaPolytechnicandStateUniversityrcvitgt 'rtt 'aTech''),RohsaanSettle O irectorofStudentConduct),and David Clubb O izectoroftheCranwelllnteznaéonal Center)(collectively ft v itgitliaTech Defendants'),assertingviolatjonsofhisFilth and Fourteenth Amendm entrightto dueprocessundez42 U.S.C.j1983.ECF No.67.This matterisbeforethecourtonVitgirliaTechDefendants'jointmoéon todisnaissCotmt11 againstVirginiaTech underRule 12(1$41),Counts1and 11againstdefendantClubb in both llisofficialand individualcapacities,and CountsIand 11againstdefendantSettle it' lhis individualcapacity,pursuanttoRule129$(6)oftheFederalRlzlesofCivilProcedute.ECF Zhao v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University et al Doc. 94 No.71.VirginiaTechmovesfozdisrnissalofCount11forlackofsubjectmattezjtuisdicdon, alleging that,asapublicurliversity,itisan agency ofthe Com m onw ealth ofVirgirliaendtled to EleventhAmendm entimm unity.LdxVirginiaTech also movesfordistnissalon the groundsthatitisnotam enable to stzitbecauseitisnotaffperson''acdng undetcolorofstate Dockets.Justia.com 1aw fortheptzmosesofand asrequired by42 U.S.C.j1983to stateaclnim.Ld.;ECF No. 24,at6. W ith respectto CountsIand I1,130th defendantSettleand defendantClubb contend thatZhao hasfailed to stateaclnim under42 U.S.C.j1983.Specihcally,defendantSettle m aintinsthatheisentitled to qualified im m unityin laisindividualcapacity.ECF N o.71,at 2.Thiscourtalready denied defendantSettle'sm odon to disrnissclnim sagninsthim in lais ofhcialcapacityonluly31,2018.ECF No.63.Thecourtnotedthen andzepeatsnow thatit isnotprepared to rule asam atterof1aw thatZhao wasgiven suffcientopportaznity to be heard duringtheFebtuary2,2018 studentconducthearingforpurposesofdueptocess.J. Z D efendantClubb m ovesfordisnnissalofthecbim sagainsthim in theirentirety on the groundsthatZhao had no cognizable propertyinterestin hisSEV IS stat'usassuch,and thereforehad no rightto noticeand ahearing priorto itsterminadon.ECF N o.44,at2. D efendantClubb also assertsthatZhao'sclnim sagainstlnim in hisindividualcapacity are barred bythedoctrineofqualified im munity.J.1 . L Thecourtisrnindfulthattheassetdonsof qualified im m unity arebeing raised in the contextofa m oéon to disnliss. A. Yunsong ffBellam y''Zhao,a citizen ofChina,cam e to theU nited Stateson an F-1 studentvisato stazdyatVirginiaTechinltzlyof2017.Zhao wasdismissed from Virg' m 'l 'a Tech on February 5,2018.The occutrenceofthreecontem poraneouseventsgive rise to Zhao'sclnim sin thisaction broughtunder42U.S.C.j 1983. ThefusteventwasZhao'sarrestonlanuary29,2018forillegalpossession ofan assaultrifle by anon-u nited Statesciézen orperm anentresident,in violadon ofVirginia 2 Codej18.2-308.2:01.ThosechargeswereclislnissedbyaMontgomeryCountyCircuitCourt JudgeonSeptember24,2018. The second eventw asVirginiaTech'snoéfying theD epartm entofH om eland SeculityviatheStazdentand ExchangeVisitorInformation System (SEVIS)thatZhaohad dzopped below the requisite num berofcredithouzsto m aintain hisstatusasa full-lim e stazdent,asrequiredby8C.F.R.j214.3/)(2).TlliseventoccurredonthesnmedayasZhao's arrestylanuary29,2018.Two dayslater,Zhaowasissued anoticeto appearby the D epar% entofH om eland Security,stadng hewasrem ovablefrom the United Statesbecause he failed to m aintain lzisstatazsasa full-tim e student. The thitd ekentwasasm dentconducthearing held in Zhao'sabsence on Febm ary 2, 2018,fourdaysafterZhao'satrestand the tetmination ofllisSEVIS stam s.A tthe tim e, Zhao wasincarcerated on thegtzn charge.Tlzisheadng stem m ed from llisalleged possession ofa prohibited knife on cam puson two separate occasions.lZhao wasaw are ofthishearing, which had been scheduled priorto lnisarrestand incarcezaéon.H em etwit. h Stazdent ConductCoordinatorKyleRoseonJanuary26,2018to discussthehearing.Zhao alleges thatonlanuary30,2018,afterhisarreston thegtm chargethepreviousday,heused theftrst oflzistwo fzeecallsto tryto contacthiscourt-appointedcriminaldefenseattorney,lason W olfrey,butwasunable to reach M . r.W olfrey and lefta m essagewith som eone hisoffice. Thefollowing day,January31,VitginiaTech policedeliveredapackettoZhao atthe M ontgom ezy Counl lailcontairling anoticefrom theOfficeofStudentConductexplnining thatifffyou need m oretim e to review thisnew infotvnation,please contactKyle Rose ...to 1' I' hefzrstoccasionwasJanuazy6,2018,followingcontactwithVirginiaTechpolice.Thesecondwasduringexecudon ofaseatchwarrantfollowingllisJanuary29arrest.Zhaowasplacedonitzteri m suspension,andthesetwoalleged violadonsofthe studentconductpolicy were com bined into one healing,wllich wasscheduled forFebruary2,2018. discusshearing date options.Ifw edo nothearfrom you,w ewillproceed with theheadng at thescheduledfime(Friday,February2nd,at2pm).''ECF No.67,at36.ZhaocalledRose thatsam e day pertheinstrucdonsfrom VirginiaTech to requestthatVirginiaTech reschedule hishearing.ld.at36-37.Tlnisw asZhao'slastfreephone call. Zhao wasadvised by Rose thatifhewasunable to attend thehearing in person,hecould appearby telephone orwritten subm ission.ECF N o.60,at39-41.Zhao cbim shehad no m oney to m ake additionalcallsorcontactVirginiaTech by any otherm eans.ECF N o.37,at41.Virginia Tech did notreschedulethehearing.Id.In absenéa,Zhao wasfound responsible fort'wo countsofunauthorized possession ofaweapon on cam pusand two countsoffailureto com plywith aunivetsity official.O n February 5,2018,Zhao wasdistnissed from the urliversity.H isappealw asdenied.Zhao isnow in the custody ofthe U .S.Im m igraéon and CustomsEnforcementAgency(1CE)inFatmville,Vitginia.zHewasdeniedbond byan immigrationjudge. B. TosurdveamotiontodisnlissunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure12q$(6),a complaintneed only contain sufficientfacmalmatterwilich,ifaccepted astrue,ffstategs)a clnim toreliefthatisplausibleonitsface.''Ashcroftv.Ibal,556U.S.662,678(2009) (quotingBellAtl.Co .v.Twombl,550U.S.544,570(2007)).A complnintisfffacially plausible''when thefactsalleged ffallowglthecourtto draw thereasonableinferencethatthe defendantisEablefozthem isconductalleged.''Id.Tlzisffstandard isnotaldn to a fprobabilityreq''irem ent,'butitasksfotm ore than a sheetpossibility thata defendanthas 2Zhao wastransferred to ICE custody afterbeing released on bolid on hisgun chargepending itzM ontgom ery Cotmty. 4 acted unlawfully.7'LdaW henruling onamodon to disnaiss,thecourtmustffacceptthewellpled allegationsofthecom plaintastnze''and ftconstrtze the factsand reasonableinferences derived therefrom in the lightm ostfavorable to theplaintiff.''lbarrav.United States,120 F.3d472,474(4thCir.1997). W hilethecouttm ustacceptastt'ue allwell-pled facm alallegaéons,the sam eisnot trtw forlegalconclusions.fv hreadbare recitalsoftheelem entsofa causeofaction, . supported by m ere conclusory statem ents,do notsuffice.''Lq-ab 1,556 U .S.at6789seealso W a MoreDo sLLC v.Cozart,680F.3d359,365(4thCir.2012)rfAlthoughweare constrained to take the factsin thelightm ostfavorableto the plaintiff,w eneed notaccept legalconclusionscouched asfactsorunwarranted inferences,urlreasonable conclusions,or arguments.''(internalquotadonmarksolnittedl). In considering a m otion to dism iss,the cotzrtisffgenerallylim ited to areview ofthe allegationsofthe com plaintitself.''G oinesv.Valley Cm ty.Servs.Bd.,822 F.3d 159,165-66 (4thCir.2016).However,otherevidencemaysometimesbeconsulted: rf' he colzrtj also considers doclpments that are explicitly incom orated into thecom plnintby reference,Tellabs,Inc.v.M akor Issues& mghts,Ltd.,551U.S.308,322 (2007),and thoseattached to thecomplaintasexhibits,seeFed.R.Civ.P.10(c).And ...lthe cotzrt)mayconsideradocumentsubmitted bythem ovantthatwas notattached to orexptessly incom orated in acom plznt,so long as the docum entwasintegralto the com plnintand there isno dispute aboutthe document'sauthenticity.gsec' ofState fotDefence v.) Trimble F av.Ltdj, 484 F.3d F0q,705 g(4th Cir.2007)q;Am . Chiro ractic A ss'n v.Tri on H ealthcare Inc.,367 F.3d 212,234 (4th Cit.2004);Phillisv.LCI Int'l lnc.,190 F.3d 609,618 (4th Cir.1999). Id.at166. D. 5 VirgirliaTech arguesthatZhao'sj1983clnim againstitcannotsucceed asamatterof 1aw becausetheunivezsityisnotaKfperson''forpumosesofj1983.In orderto stateaclnim under42U.S.C.j1983,aplaintiffmustprovethedeprivation ofacivilrightbyaffperson'' acéng undercolorofstate 1aw .3In W iIIv.M ichi an D e 'tofStatePolice,the Suprem e Courtplainlyheld thatasuableT'person''underj1983doesnotincludeastate,astate agency,ora stateoffkialsued in hisorheroffkialcapacityfozdam ages.491U .S.58,70-71 (1989).Inotherwords,j1983doesnotprovidef<afederalfotnzm forlidgantswhoseeka remedyagainsta gsjtateforalleged deprivationsofcivilliberties.''ld.at71.Vitgml ' 'aTech is designated by statuteasacom oraéon undez the controloftheG eneralA ssem bly,Va.Code Ann.j23.1-2600 (2016),and assuchitsstatazsisthesameasanyotherstateagency.See Carboniv.Meldmm,949F.Supp.427,433 (W .D.Va.1996)(VirginiaTechisan arm ofthe state);Collinv.Rector& Bd.ofVisitorsoftheUniv.ofVa.,873 F.Supp.1008,1013 (W .D. Va.2005)(Board ofVisitorsatUVA sameasotherstateagencies).VirgirliaTech clearly falls outsidethescopeofatfperson''forj1983purposes. Zhao'sclnim sagainstVizginiaTech are also barred by the Eleventh Am endm ent. VhginiaTech isa constituentenéty ofthe Comm onw ealth ofVirginia,a factZhao doesnot and would haveno basisfordisputing.See ltichard Anderson Photo ra h v.Radford Univ.,633F.Supp.1154,1158(W.D.Va.1986);Carboni,949F.Supp.at433 T itginiaTech isentitled to EleventhAm endmentimmunity).TheEleventh Amendm entprovidesthat tfgtjheludicialpowersof theUnited Statesshallnotbecons% ed toextendto anysuitin law orequity,com m enced orprosecuted againstone ofthe Urlited Statesby Cidzensof 3Title42U. S.C.j1983providesthatfflelverypersonwho,undercolorofanystatute...subjects,orcausestobe subjected,anyciézenoftheUrlitedStates...tothedept ivadonofanyrkhts,pdvileges,orimmlanitiessecuredbythe Consdttzdonandlaws,shallbeliabletothepartyinjured.'' 6 anotherState,orbyciézensorsubjectsofanyforeignstate.''See,a..,Hansv.Louisiana, 134 U.S.1,3 (1890).Itisamatterofblackletterlaw thatapdvateindividualcannot maintain aj1983 suitagainstastateorastateagencyin federalcourton thebasisof EleventhAmendmentimmunity.Edelmanv.Jordan,415U.S.651,662-63(1974)9seealso Quernv.Jordan,440U.S.332,337-40(1979).TheunstatedcorollarytotheEleventh Amendmentisthatfedezalcourtsmustrefzain from exercisingjutisdicéon oversuits comm enced by the citizen ofa state broughtagainstthe state ofthe cidzen'sdom icile. Amaram v.Vir 'niaStateUniv.,476F.Supp.2d 535,539-40 (E.D.Va.2007),affd,261F. App'x 552 (4th Cit.2008). How ever,theEleventh Am endm ent,pursuantto theSuprem eCotut'sholding in Ex arteYoun ,doesnotbarZhao'ssuitagainsttheinclividualdefendantsin theiroffkial capacidestotheextentthatheseeksprospecdveinjuncéverelief.SeeCobbv.TheRector& VisitorsofUniv.ofVit 'nia,69F.Supp.2d 815,824 (W.D.Va.1999)9seealso Quern,440 U.S.at337;Ex arteYoun ,209U.S.123(1908).ZhaomaintainsthatEx arteYoun goes even flzrther,abrogating sovereign im m unityasto VitginiaTech aswell.ECF N o.74,at5-6. ThedoctrineofEx arte Youn ,w llich ensuresthatstateoffcialsm ay notem ploy the Eleventh Am endm entasam eansofavoiding com pliancewith federallaw,isregarded as carving outa necessaryexcepéon to Eleventh Am endm entim m unity.See,e.g., G reen v. - M ansour,474U.S.64,68(1985).Nevertheless,theexceptionisnarzow:Itappliesonly to prospecdverelief,doesnotpet-mitjudgmentsagainststateofficersdecladng thatthey violated federallaw in thepast,and,crucially,hasffno applicationin suitsagainstthe(sqtates and theiragencies,which are barred regardlessofthereliefsought.''Puerto Rico A queduct & SewerAuth.v.Metcalf& Edd Inc.,506U.S.139,146(1993).Inotherwozds,theEx arteYoun excepdon doesnotpetvnitZhao to subjectVirgu 'u'aTech to suit.Thecourt findsthatbecauseVirginiaTechis(1)notaffperson''amenableto suitunderj1983and (2) isimmuneundettheEleventhAmendment,itlackssubjectmatterjtuiscliction toadjudicate claim sagainstit.The m odon to disrnissVitginiaTech isG RAN TED . E. ltiswellsettled that42U.S.C.j1983isnotself-execuéng,and aplaindffmustassert the violation ofafedetalright,notm erely a federallaw,to m aintnin aclnim .Blessin v. Freestone,520U.S.329,340-41(1997).Zhao'sj1983 clnim againstdefendantClubb is preclicated on an aieged deprivadon ofcertain vested propertyinterestsin am anner violadve ofhisdue processrightsundertheFourteenth Am enclm ent.TheFoutteenth Am endm entpreventsstatesftom Tfdepriving individualsoflife,liberty,otpropertywithout dueprocessoflam ''U.S.Const.,amend.XIV,j1,amend.V.To proveaproceduraldue processcleim,Zhaomustshow thathehasa(1)constittztionallycognizableproperty interest,thatthe(2)statedeprived him ofthatinterest,andthatthe(3)deprivadonwas effectuated withoutconstittzdonally sufficientprocess.Sansottav.Town ofN a sH ead,724 F.3d 533,540 (4t.h Cir.2013).Thereisnopropertyrightthatexistsin procedures themselves.Cleveland Bd.ofEduc.v.Loudetvnill,470U.S.532,541 (1985).ltiswell-settled that<f(a)protected propertyinterestcannotbecreated bytheFourteenth Amenclm entabut ratherm ustbe created ozdefm ed by an independentsource,''m ostoften statelaw .Eqlaityin Athledcs Inc.v.De 'tofEduc.,639F.3d 91,109 (4th Cir.2011)9seealsoBd.ofRe entsv. Roth,408U.S.564,577(1972)(fTTo haveapropertyinterestin abenefit,aperson clearly 8 m usthave m orethan ...aunilateralexpectation ofit.H e m ust,instead,havea legitim ate clnim ofentitlementtoit.').ZhaocontendsthatdefendantClubb unlawfullydeprivedhim oftwo vested propertyinterests- lnisrightto enrollm entasasm dentatVirgml ' 'aTech and hisvested SEVIS status- withoutdueprocess.ECF N o.67,at2;ECF N o.74,at10-13.H e azguesthesepzopezty intezestsazeinextricably intertwined;buteven ifthey are not,Zhao clnim she hasan independentpropertyinterestin llisSEV IS status.The courtfm dsthat Zhao'scbim ed propertyinterestin continued enrollm entatVirginiaTech isfactazally disdnct from hisSEVIS stattzs,and thatZhao did notpossess,noristhere any legalbasisfor recognizing,an independent,stand-alonepropertyinterestin llisSEV IS status. Underfederallaw,aunivezsity thatadlnitsinternadonalsm dentsm ustcom ply with specifk federalregulationsgovezning them aintenanceofdatarelated to a student'sF-1visa stat'usthrough SEVIS.The SEVIS database fftrackstheentc ,stay,and exitofforeign studeptsin theU nited States.''ECF N o.43,at3.Through thissystem ,adesignated sttzdent officialtransmitssm dentdataviatheSEVIS database to the U.S.D epar% entofH om eland Secutity fotteview. H ere,Zhao allegesthatpriorto m odifying hisstatazsin theSEVIS databaseto reflect hisfailure to saésfythe federally m andated threshold oftwelve credits,due processrequited thatheteceivenoticeand ahearing.The basisforthisdue processclnim isthatZhao's TTSEVIS record atVitginiaTech ...isinextdcable from hisvested propertyinterestto attend schoolatVizginiaTech,''ECF N o.70,at18,and thusdue processpzotecdonsextend to changesm adeto llisSEVIS record.ECF N o.67,at5,20. The factsbeforethe courtindicate thattheplaintifpsSEV IS stat'usand property interestin conénued enrollm entatVirginia Tech are,contrary to Zhao'sclnim ,clearly divisible.lndeed,VitginiaTech stated thatitdoesnotprohibitstudentsfrom condnuing entollm entbased upon eithertheirSEVIS stattzsspecifically otim m igration stattzsgenerally. In aptiorfedetalaction,Virginia Tech stated thatitTfdoesnottake im m igtaéon statusinto accountin eitheradmissionsorenrollm ent.''E ualAccessEducaéon v.M enon,305 F. Supp.2d 585(2004)(BriefbyDefendantsIn SupportofM odon forSummaryludgment, fl 'ledJune8,2004,! 81).Furthezmore,thereisno evidencesuggese gthattheministerialact ofm odifying Zhao'sSEVIS record asrequired by fedezallaw resulted in the tetm inadon of lnisenrollm entatVirginiaTech.lnstead,theterrninadon ofa student'sSEV IS stat' usresults in a ffholdy''teqlliting thatthe studentconferwith VirgirliaTech offkialspriorto registedng foranew acadenaic term .ECF N o.27;ECF N o.43,at2-3.The affidavitftom the deputy registrarindicatesthatVirginiaTech did notconsiderZhao officially disrnissed unlilafterthe unrelated studentconducthearing washeld.In ofherw ords,the terrnination ofZhao's cllim ed propertyinterestin continued etlrollm entwasfactually urlrelated to the change in hisSEV IS stam s. Insofarasthem odification ofZhao'sSEVIS record im plicateslzisF-1visa and im m igtation status,whateverdue processheisowed with respectto these issuesisthe prerogative ofand provided forin theim m igration coutts,notthe hallw aysofVitgt 'nt 'aTech. VirgirliaTech'stetm ination ofZhao'sSEVIS stat'usneitheztestzlted in llisdeportadon norin therevocation ofllisF-1visa.M erelym odifying Zhao'sstat'usin the SEVIS database,a clericalduty perform ed asaprelim inary m atterand itlaccordancewith federaltegtzladons, therefore doesnotitselfengenderdue processptotections.Forhispart,VitginiaTech's designated schoolofficial,defendantClubb,stated thathe fflacked the discreéon orauthority to retain Zhao asastazdent,''and thatin updating Zhao'sSEVISrecord,hewasfffulflllgingj myobligationrequited byU.S.lmmigtaéon and Custom sEnforcem enttoimme'diately reportM r.Zhao'snoncom pliance''with SEVIS.ECF N o.15,atEx.A .Ultim ately,itisthe immigration courts,and notVirginiaTech,thatwilladjudicateZhao'simmigtadon status, and thereisno contention in tlniscase thatZhao'sim m igration proceedingshavelacked due processprqtecéons. Zhao arguesin the alternativethateven ifhisSEVIS statusisheld to beseparable from hisclnim ed property interestin conénued enrollm ent,defendantClubb nonetheless stillviolated hisdue pzocessrightsbecausehepossçssed an independentpropertyinterestin hisSEVIS stam s.The plaindffdoesnotprofferany legalbasisforthiscbim .Indeed,the only case specifically addtessing the question ofwhethera studentpossessesaproperty interestin hisorherSEVIS stat'usgiving rise to dueprocessprotectionsconcludesthatthere isnot.ln thatcase,Bakhtiariv.Be er,the districtcourtdeterm ined thatneithetthe SEVIS regulationsnor the enabiing legisladon itzdicateany congressionalintentto create aprivate rightofaction orto otherv sebenefitaperson in the plaintiff'sposidon.N o.4:06-CV J 01489(CEJ),2008WL 3200820,at*3(E.D.Mo.Aug.6,2008).Furthezmore,in Fan v. Brewer,acaselateraff/m ed by the Fifth Citcuit,the distdctcourtheld thatm erelyupdadng astudent'sSEV IS record to reflecttheirchanged academic stat'tzsdid notviolateany constittzti6nalright.Fanv.Brewer,No.(21V.A.1-1-08-3524,2009W L 1743824,at*8(S.D. Tex.June17,2009),aff'd sub nom.Fen hlziFan v.Brewer,377F.App'x366 (5th Cir. 2010).TheFifth Citcuit,in affi= ing thedistrictcourt,notedthatbyupdatingtheSEW S database,theem ployeein quesdon was<fm erely fulfo ng herduty underfederallam '' FenghuiFan,377 F.App'x at368.Finally,Zhao failed to cite any precedentozregulaéon requiringVirginiaTech orany otheruniversity to providenotice and ahearing before changing laisSEVIS status. In sum ,because thereisno legalbasisorprecedentsupporting Zhao'scontendon thathisSEVIS statusconstitutesan independentpropertyinterestim plicaéng due process, and becausechanging hisSEVIS stam sdoesnotinvariablyim plicate hisclnim ed property interestinconénuedenrollmentatVirginiaTech,adjuséng Zhao'sSEVISzecordwithout priornoticeand a hearing did notviolate any constittztionalrightto due process.Thetefore, the cotutneed notdecidewhethezdefendantClubb wasendtled to Eleventh Am enclm ent im m unityin hisofficialcapacity orguao ed im m unityin hisindividualcapacity.In the absenceofan underlyingconstitutionalviolation to buttresshisj 1983 cbim ,itnecessarily m ustfail.Them odon to disrnissdefendantClubb isthereforeG RAN TED . F. Zhao'sclsim sagainstdefendantSettlein b0t. h llisoffkialand individualcapaciéesare predicated on aclaim ed violation ofhisdueprocessrightsduring theFebrtzary 2,2018 studentconducthearing which resulted in laisexpulsion fzom VirginiaTech.Specifk ally, Zhao allegesthatdefendantSettle,w ho presided overtheFebrtzary2 hearing,Tfblatantly ignored''Zhao'sdueprocessrightsby ffholding aheadng while knowing M . r.Zhao could not at'tendsaid hearing,and neverattempéng to re-adjustthehearing datesothatM. r.Zhao could attend a hearing thataffected llisentitelife.''ECF N o.67,at4.Zhao clnim sthatthis conductdeprived him ofaçfmeaningfulopportunityto beheard.''11. 4In Eghtofthecourt's reftzsalto rule asam atterof1aw thatZhao wasgiven a suffcientopporturzity to beheard duting the Febrtzary2,2018 stazdentconducthearing forpum osesofdueprocess,hisofficial capacityclnim forinjuncdveand declaratoryrelief(CountlI)againstdefendantSettlemay proceed.TheonlyzemainingissuefozthecourttodecideatthisjunctuzeisZhao'sclnims againstdefendantSettle in hisinividualcapacity. In contrastto actionsagainststate ofhcialsin theirofûcialcapacity,acdonsin theit individualcapacity triggeran analysisofqualified im m unity.H arlow v.Fitzgerald,457 U.S. 800,807-08 (1982).Thedoctdneofqualified immunityservestoprotectagovernment offkialfrom liabilityin hisindividualcapacity in perform ing discretionary tasksTtaslong as theiractionscould reasonably havebeen thoughtconsistentwit.h the rightsthey are alleged tohaveviolated.''Andersonv.Creihton,483U.S.635,638(1987).ThedocttineTfenslzres thatgstateqofficialscan perform theirduéesfreefrom thespecterofendlessanddebilitadng lawsuits.''ltid athv.Bd.ofGovernorsMarshallUniv.,447F.3d292,306(4thCir.2006) ( (quotingTorchinskyv.Siwinsld,942F.2d257,260(4thCir.1991)).Under Wilsonv.La ne, couttsconsidering qualified im m unity <fm ustfltstdete= inew hethertheplninéffhasalleged the deprivatbn ofan actualconstim tionalHghtatall,and ifso,proceed to deteênzine whetherthatrightw asclearly estabûshed atthe tim e ofthealleged violation.''Sm ith v. Rector& VisitorsofUniv.ofVirinia,78F.Supp.2d 533,539 (W .D.Va.1999)(cidng W ilsonv.La ne,526U.S.603 (1999)).ln caseswhereadueprocessvioladon isalleged,a 4Zhaoallegesthatsmdentconductinformedhim afterhisJanuary29arrestthatbothinstancesofpossessingaknifeon cam puswould be com bined into onehearing,wlzich was scheduled forFebzuazy 2.Zhao called hisstudentcoordinator KyleRoseonlanuary31andaskedhim toreschedulethehearingbecausehewasincarcerated.ZhaoandRosedidnot speakf'urther,andtheieat ingproceededasscheduledinZhao'sabsence. 13 courtm ustdeternainewhetherthe asserted interestisencom passed within theFoutteent.h Amendment'sprotecdonofftfe,liberty,orpropertf'beforeembarkinguponaW ilson analysisofqualifiedimmunity.SeeIn aham v.Wriht,430 U.S.651,672 (1977);Board of Regentsv.Roth,408U.S.564,569-572 (1972).Thecourtwillproceedaccordingly,& st addzessing the alleged pzopeztyintezestatstakeand then pzoceecling to discussthe defendant'sclqim ofqualified im m unity. G. In Count1,Zhao allegesthatdefendantSettleviolated l' tisFourteenth Am endm ent rightto dueprocessby depriving him oflnisinterestin continued er ollm entatVirgirlia Tech withouta m eaningftzlopporm nity to be heatd.ECF.67,at4.The Suprem eCourthas ' assum ed,withoutacm ally deciding,thaturlivetsity sm dentspossessa Tfconsdtudonally protecéble propertyright''in theitcondnued enzollm entin auniversity.Re entsoftheU niv. ofM icllianv.Ewin ,474U.S.214,223 (1985);seealso Board ofCuratorsoftheUniv.of V ssouriv.Horowitz,435U.S.78,91-92(1978)(assumingthatacadernicdisrnissalsfrom stateinstitutionscan beenjoinediftheyarearbittaryorcapriciousl;Hensonv.Honor Comm.oftheUniv.ofVir 'rzia,719F.2d 69,73 (4th Cir.1983)(assuming thatsmdenthad ffprotectablepropertyorlibertyinterest''in HonorCommitteedisciplinaryproceeding); Tirettv.Rector& VisitorsofUniv.ofVirinia,290F.3d620,627 (4th Cir.2002).Eçltisno longeropen to question thatany expulsion from astateuniversityorcoEege mustcom port with the D ueProcessClauseoftheFolzrteenth Am endm ent.''Tigrett,137 F.Supp.2d at 675 (ciéngGossv.Lo ez,419U.S.565,576,n.8 (1975),andW oodv.Stdckland,420U.S. 308,329(1975)). 14 H. In lightofZhao'sapparentpropertyinterestin conénued erlrollm entatVirginia Tech,the ffquestion rem ainswhatprocessisdue.''M orrisse v.Brew er,408 U .S.471,481 (1972).W hereasmdentfacesexpulsion,theFourf.hCircuithasembracedtheFifthCircuit's decisioninDixonv.Ala.StateBd.ofEdu.,294F.2d150,158(5thCir.1961),thatthe following due ptocess standatd should apply: Thenodce should contain a statem entofthespecihcchargesand groundswllich,ifproven,wouldjustifyexpulsionunderthe regulationsoftheF niversity).Thenamreofthehe/tingshould varydepending upon the citcum stancesofthepntqicularcase.The casebeforeusrequiressom ething m orethan an infotm alinterdew with an adm inisttative authorityofthecollege.Byitsnatate,a chargeofm isconduct,asopposed to a failure to m eetthe scholasdc standardsofthecollege,dependsupon a collecdon ofthe facts concezning thecharged rnisconduct,easily coloted by the pointof view oftlaewitnesses.In such circum stances,a henting which gives the...adm inistrative authoriéesofthe college an opporttznityto hear170th sidesin considerable detailisbestsuited to ptotectthe rightsofallinvolved.Tlaisisnotto imply thatafull-dzessjudicial hearing,with the rightto ' cross-exarnine witnesses,isrequired.Such a hearing,with theatlending publicity and distarbance ofcollege acévitiesm ightbe detrim entalto the college'seducadonal a% osphereand im practicable to carryout.N evertheless,the rtzclim entsofan adversaryproceeding m ay be preserved without encroaclling upon theinterestsofthe college. Cobb v.Rector& VisitorsofUniv.ofVa.,69 F.Supp.2d 815,828-29(W .D.Va.1999) (alterationsandomissionsinoriginal)(quoéngDixon,at158-59(5thCit.1961));seealso Henson,719F.2d at74 rfAlthough Dixonwasdecidedmorethan twentyyearsago,its sum m ary ofnninim um due processrequitem ents fordisciplinary hearingsirlan acadernic seténgisstillaccuratetodap').TheSuprem eCout'thasheld that,attheveryleast,students facing suspension otexptzlsion and the concomitantinterfetencewif.h aprotected property 15 intetestm ustgenerally be Tfgiven som e sortofnoéce and afforded som e kind ofhearinp'' G oss,419 U .S.at579.ffT' he fundam entalreqlaisiteofdue process oflaw isthe opportunity to beheard.''Grannisv.Ordean,234U.S.385,394(1914).Yet,theTfprocessduein any particularcaseisgoverned by whatthe Tpardcularsituation dem ands.'''D oev.A lger,228 F. Supp.3d713,729(W.D.Va.2016)(quotingMorrisse,408U.S.at481).Tf'l'henatuteofdue processnegatesany conceptofinflexibleproceduresuniversally applicableto every imaginablesittzadon.''CafeteriaW oikersv.M cElro ,367U.S.886,895(1961). 1. V ndfuloftllisstandard,the couttturnsto the fustprong underW ilson,i,4.,w hether VirgirliaTech'sdecision to pressahead with Zhao'sstudentconducthearing in hisabsence violated Zhao'stightto dueprocess.The courtwilldiscuss,buttzltim ately abstnin from deciding thisquestion,conhdentthatregardlessofitsholding underthe fustprong of W ilson,Zhao hasfailed to dem onstrate aviolation ofaclearly established consdm éonal rightnecessaryto overcom equalifed im m unity underthe second prong. In rebutting Zhao'sclaim thatholding the stazdentconducthearing in hisabsence violated dueprocess,the defendantflrstargtzesthatdue processin thestudentdisciplinary contextdoesnotrequirethephysicalpresence ofthe accused,citing Uzoeclliv.W ilson for thisproposition.No.CVJ1O -16-3975,2018W L 2416113,at*1-2 (13.Md.May29,2018), aff'd,735F.App'x65(4th Cir.2018).Thedefendant'ssecond,zelated argumentalso relies on U zoeclni,thistim e forproposidon thatwhezea studentfailsto takeadvantage ofthe processavailableto lnim ,heisprecluded from gtnzm bling aboutthatprocesswllich w asnot. InUzoechi,theplaintiff,astudentatMorgan StateUniversityr<MSU'?)in Maryland,was 16 accused ofsexualassaultand arrested afterthe incidentwasreported to M SU police.1d.The plainéfpsattorneywrote to M SU studentconductofscialson atleastt'wo occasionsand informed them thathisclientwasin jail,couldnotattend ascheduled hearing,and requested thehearingbepostponeduntillnisclientcould physically attend.M SU reftzsed to posmone the heating,found the phintiffresponsiblein absentia,and expelled him from theuniversity. Td.Theplaindffin Uzoeclliasserted thatholding theheazing in llisabsenceviolated due process.1d. ThefactsofUzoeclli,although redolentofthosebefore the cotutin thiscase,are dissim ilarin severalcridcalrespectssuch thatthe defendant'sreliance on itis som ewhat Him inished.TheU zoechicollt-tcabined itsholdingsthatffphysicalabsence from ahearingis notan autom adcconsdt-udonaldeûciency';by holcling thatffwhethetaperson isable to physically attend hisdisciplinaryhearing only m attersinsofarasitaffectshisrightto be heard.''ld.at9.Thecourt,afterreiterating thatthe plaintiffffdid notsim ply m issthe hearing;hewasphysicallyunabletoattendbecausehewasinjaily''yeaffit-medthatthe Tfcrucialquestion ...isnotwhethergpjlaintiffwasableto atlend thehearingy''but<fwhethet gpjlaintiffwasgivennoticeofthechargesandan opporttznitytobeheard.''. Li at9-10.The courtmademuch ofthefactthattheplaindffdidnot,forexample,(1)allegeffthathe(orllis counsel)ttied to subnlitafhdavits''tothedisciplinaryboard,(2)ffthathiscounseltried togo to thehearingin èllaintiff'ssteady''or(3)thathefftried to haveawitnessappearatthe heating on hisbehalf.''Id.M oreover,the couztnoted thatthe plaindffdid ffnotallege thathe wasdenied such opportunides''and itw asfrundisputed''thathe Tdcolzld have atleastttied to com m unicate llissideofthe story atthe hearinp''Id.In shortabecausethe plnintiffdid not 17 take advantageofthe processavailableto him ,the courtconcluded thatitwas ffunable to weightheproblemsthatmayhaveatisenifgpqaindffhadparécipatedinthehearing(by whatevermeanswereavailableto 1zim).''Ld.a ln iinding no consdttzdonalinfit-mity,the colzrtunderscored thattheplnintiffffdoes notanege,nozpresentevidence tending to show,thathewasunable to presenthissideof the storyatthathearing,and doesnotcontesttheevidencethatsuggestshehad an opporttznity to do so.''1d.at10.H etein laysthe crtzcialdistinction between the factsin Uzoeclniand thosein thecasesubjudice.Unliketheplainéffin Uzoechi,Zhao doesallege and doespresentevidencetendingto show (1)thathewasunableto presentlnissideofthe storyattheFebruary2,2018hearing,and (2)thatthoseopportaznidesavailabletothe plainéffin Uzoechiwereunavailable to him . The defendantinsistsZhao wasinform ed thatifhew asunable to attend the heating in person,he could appeatby phone orby written statem ent,and thathis failureto do so should havethe sam epreclusive effecton hisdueprocessclaim asin U zoechi.ECF N o.24, at9.Zhao doesnotappearto contestthathewasso inform ed.H owever,in responseto defendant'scontention thathe neglected to fftakeproperadvantageoftheprocessm ade available to lnim y7:Zhao,qlaiteplausibly,assertsthathe had used up llistavo free phone calls and did nothavem oney to place anotherorpurchase stam psin the com m issaryto send a written statem entto VirgirliaTech.ECF N o.90.Zhao also testified in open couttthathe asked otherinm atesifhe could borrow stam psorcould placea callon thei. taccounts,but wasrebuffed.Id.Furthe= ore,Zhao clnim sto haveasked the Cbineseconsulate to provide him m oney,butwastold thatbecausethisrequestinvolved ffpublicfunds,''ffthere'snothing 18 wecan do.'?Ld.aTo makemattersworse,unliketheplaindffin Uzoechi,Zhao did nothave the benefitofbeing represented byindependentlegalcounselin tlze disciplinary m atterat VirginiaTech.W hen Zhao tzied to raise the scheduling iësuewit .h hiscourt-appointed criminaldefenseattorney,lason W olfrey,theTfflrstthing''W olfzey allegedlytold Zhaowas thatfrthisisnotwhatlrepresentyou fon''ECF N o.90.In sum ,Zhao clnim swhatthe plaintiffin Uzoechiclid not;thathewasphysically unable to be heard.ltwasnotundl Zhao'sm othervisited him afterthe stazdentconducthearing and afterZhao teceived aletter ofclismissalthathehad them oney to com m unicatewit.h Virgtu ' 'a Tech,atw llich pointhe allegedly purchased stam ped envelopesand wrotea letterappealing lnisdisnnissal.Jda - Itisnotloston thecourtthatZhao wasin custodyattheM ontgomeryCountylailin the run up to hissttzdentconducthearing and thatasaptacécalm atter,lzisability to com m unicatewith others,includingVirpz 'u'aTech,wasexttem ely lim ited.N orisitthe colzrt'sview thatZhao wasresponsible forexhausdng everyim aginable avenuewhich,with the benefitofhindsight,w asconceivably open to him .ThatZhao,forexam ple,clid not tvnkto draftawzitten statementon thebackoftheenvelopedelivered to him byVirginia Tech police and passthatstatem entalong to eitherW olfzey or anotheriom atesoon to be released,doesnotaloneresultin a forfeitlqre ofhisdue processrights.The presentfacts, construed in thelightm ostfavorableto the plaindff,suggestZhao did llisutm ost,oratleast whatcould reasonably beexpected ofhim ,to reach outto VitgitliaTech underinauspicious conditions.The factsasalleged by plaindffalso contradictthedefendant'sportrayalofZhao assitdng on llistightsin m annerthatnnightrestrain the courtfzom finding a dueprocess violation pursuantto the holding in Uzoeclti. 19 J. Underthe second prong ofW ilson,thecourtm ustdete= inewhetherthecontouts ofthe rightw ere clearly established atthe tim eofthe alleged violadon such thatareasonable officialwotzldunderstand thattheirconductwasunlawful.1d. In thezecentcaseofD .C.v. W-ç-s-b-y,theSupremeCouttheld: To be clearly established,alegalprinciple m usthave a sufficiently clearfoundadon in then-existing precedent.Therule m ustbe ffsettled lawy''which m eansitisdictated by ffconttolling authority'' or<rarobustfconsensusofcasesofpersuasiveauthoriy r:Itisnot enough thattherule issuggested by then-exiséng precedent.The precedentm ustbeclearenough thateveryteasonable offkialwould interpretitto establish the particularrule the plaindffseeksto apply.O therwise,thenzleisnotone thatTdeveryreasonableofficial'' w ould know . 138S.Ct.577,589-90(2018)(intetnalcitationsomitted).Ttlnotherwords,exisdng1aw must have placed theconsdtazdonalityofthe officerfsconductdfbeyond debate.''A shctoftv.al- Ifidd,563U.S.731,741(2011).ThisdemandingstandardprotectsTfallbuttheplninly incompetentorthosew ho knowinglyviolate thelam ''M alley v.Bdggs,475 U .S.335,341 (1986).Inaddidon,TfgwlehaverepeatedlystressedthatcourtsmustnotTdefineclearly established law atahigh levelofgenerality,since doing so avoidsthe cm cialqueséon w hethertheoffkialacted reasonably in theparticularcircum stancesthatheorshe faced.''' al-lodd,563U.S.,at742 (internalquotaéonmarksand citation ornitted).Id.at590.The rightm ustbe<fclearly established''in <fa m orepardcularized,and hence m ozerelevantsense'' than sim ply an abstractstatem entssuch asthe zightto dueprocess.Anderson v.Crei hton, 483U.S.635,640(1986).ffT'lzisisnotto saythatan officialactbnisprotected byqualified im m unityunlesstheveryacéon in queséon haspreviously been held unlaw ful...butitisto 20 saythatin lightofpreexistinglaw theunlawfulnessmustbeapparent.''JdaTheFoutth Circuithasffem phasized repeatedly,ofik ialsarenotliable forbad guessesin gray areas;they areliablefortransgressing brightlines.''Raub v.Cam bell,785F.3d 876,881(4th Cir. 2015). GiventheholdinginUzoechi,thiscaserepresentsjustsuchagrayarea.Thereisno clearprecedentasto whatauniversity'sobligationsarewhen a studentisunable to attend a clisciplinary hearing through no faultoftheuniversity.Priorto hisarrest,Virgtu ' 'aTech scheduled Zhao'sstudentconducthearing forFebruary 2.Zhao received nodceofthe conductvioladon alleged and wasaw ate ofthe dateon which thehearingw asto be held, havingalreadyconferred with Rosein person dlxtingapre-hearingmeedng onlanuary26, 2018.ECF N o.67,at32.VirginiaTech did notcause Zhao to missthe henting;ratherZhao w asarrested on a gun chargeunrelated to hisdisciplinarywoesatVirgilaiaTech.W hen the universitylearnedthatZhaohadbeenarrested,VirginiaTechpolicedeEveredtohim injaila notice containing theevidenceagninsthim .Shortly thereafter,Zhao wasinform ed of alternativem ethodsofappearing ifhewasunable to do so in person.ECF N o.60,at40-41. W asVitginiaTech required to posp one the conducthearing,and ifso,forhow long and underwhatc/cumstances?W asVitginiaTech reqllitedtovisitthejailandtakeastatement ftom Zhao before holding thehearing orotherwise supply him wit .h a m eansto presentllis side ofthe stoly,such asapre-stam ped return envelopewith thepacketdelivered to him on January31,asplaintiff'scounselsuggested atozalargument?Thesearediffkultquesdonsfor w llich there are no straightforward answ ers.Plainly,the quandty and quality ofprocessowed to a sm dentin Zhao'sunique sittzadon cannotfairly besaid to be ffclearly established.''Itis certainly notthe case thatffexisting precedent...placed the statutory orconsdtudonal queséon''confzonted by defendantSettle fTbeyond debate.''al-lo dd,563 U .S.,at7419see Painterv.Doe2016WL 4644495,at*6(W .D.N.C.Sept.6,2016)rv hiletherightto proceduraldue processisw ellestablished,due proqessrightsin the contextofacollege disciplinaryhearingarenot.'').In Uzoechi,whichwasaffumedbytheFotzrth Circuit,the courtstressed thatffitisnotthe gclourt'sjob to determinebestptacticesforM SU'S disciplinaryprocess.''2018WL 2416113,at*10 rfgl-flolclingahearingin asmdent'sabsence isnotaperseviolation ofthesmdent'sprocedtualdueprocessrights.').Inasmuchasthere isno clearly established constitutionaldeficiency underthesecond prong ofW ilson,this courtconcurswith tllisview. A ccozdingly,thecolzrtconcludesthatdefendantSettleisentitled to qualified immurlity.Quitesimply,itwasnotffclearlyestablished''thathewas(1)obligated to accom m odate asttzdentin custodywith an uncertain releasedate so thathecould be physicallypresentattheFebrtzary2hearing,or(2)otherwiseensurethatZhaohadthe wherewithalwhileincarcetated to appearby alternaévem eans.The courtissatisfied thatthat defendantSettle did notviolate any clearly established constim tional1aw and thereforeis im m une from suitin lzisindividualcapacity.The factsofZhao'scase setforth in the pleadings,affidavits,docum ents,and testim ony adduced in open colzrtreflectaperfect storm ofacadem ic,im m igraéon,and crim inal1aw difficultiesculnninatingit' lZhao'sdism issal from VirginiaTech.Thea).é enerisnatute ofZhao'spredicam entplaced iliscasewithin a . gray area beyond clearly çstablished boundaries.The m otion to disnnissCountsIand 11 againstdefendantSettlein hisindividualcapacityistherefore GRAN TE D . K. Finally,Zhao m akesa clnim forboth punitivedam agesand attozney'sfeesagqinst defendantSettle and defendantClubb in theirindividualcapa'cidesforTfblatantlyviolating M r.Zhao'sconséttztionalrights.''ECF N o.67,at47-48.W ith no rem aining substandve clnim sagainsteitherdefendantin theitindividualcapacities,Zhao'srequestforthepunidve dam agesand attorney'sfeesisD EN IED . L. A ccordingly and forthereasonssetforth herein,the cotlrtGR AN T S the m odon to dismissCount11againstVirginiaTech,CountsIand 11againstdefendantClubb,and bot. h countsagainstdefendantSettlein hisindividualcapacitp ThosecountsareD ISM ISSED with prejudice.Theonlyremainingcauseofacdonin thiscaseisCount11forinjuncdve and declaratory reliefagainstdefendantSettlein llisofik ialcapacity.A n appropriate order willbe entered. Enteted:/.t(')v za/8 4/ DV M Y . M ichaçlF.Ur nsld cueftjrsitedstatesbistzictludge MCXV

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.