Ghayoori v. Killeen et al
| Arash Ghayoori |
| Timothy L Killeen, Robert Jones, Christopher MB Lehmann, All Members of the Senate Committee on Student Discipline and All Members of the Subcommittee on Student Conduct Office for Student Conflict Resolution |
| 2:2023cv02116 |
| May 24, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Sara Darrow |
| Colleen R Lawless |
| Eric I Long |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 25, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
TEXT ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT entered by Chief Judge Sara Darrow on May 25, 2023. This case and the corresponding hearings are reassigned to Judge Colleen Lawless for further proceedings. (TC)
|
| Filing 7 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Defendants Robert Jones, Timothy L Killeen, Christopher MB Lehmann. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Land, Peter) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Katherine Tierney on behalf of Robert Jones, Timothy L Killeen, Christopher MB Lehmann (Tierney, Katherine) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Michael D Hayes on behalf of Robert Jones, Timothy L Killeen, Christopher MB Lehmann (Hayes, Michael) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Peter G Land on behalf of Robert Jones, Timothy L Killeen, Christopher MB Lehmann (Land, Peter) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by David Sergi on behalf of Arash Ghayoori (Sergi, David) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiff Arash Ghayoori. Responses due by 5/24/2023 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, #3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Sergi, David) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number AILCDC-4214355.), filed by Arash Ghayoori. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit Exhibit 10, #11 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Sergi, David) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/24/2023: #12 Sworn Verification) (DS). |
|
TEXT ORDER OF RECUSAL. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce recused. disqualifies and recuses himself/herself from participation in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455(a). This matter is referred to Chief Judge Sara Darrow for reassignment. Entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 5/24/23. (TC)
|
|
TEXT ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT entered by Chief Judge Sara Darrow on 5/24/23. This case and the corresponding hearings are reassigned to Chief Judge Sara Darrow pending reassignment. Entered by Chief Judge Sara Darrow on 5/24/23. (TC)
|
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Chief Judge Sara Darrow on May 24, 2023. The #2 motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. The standard governing temporary restraining orders ("TROs") is identical to the standard governing preliminary injunctions. Long v. Bd. of Educ., Dist. 128, 167 F. Supp. 2d 988, 990 (N.D. Ill. 2001). The party seeking a TRO "must demonstrate: (1) its case has some likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that no adequate remedy at law exists; and (3) it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted." Ty, Inc. v. Jones Grp., Inc., 237 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 2001). If these three conditions are met, then the court considers "the irreparable harm that the nonmoving party will suffer if preliminary relief is granted, balancing such harm against the irreparable harm the moving party will suffer if relief is denied." Id. The court must also consider the public interest in denying or granting the injunctive relief--i.e., how it would affect non-parties. Id. Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that his case has a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff is complaining that he will suffer a due process violation if the disciplinary hearing goes forward because: the rules the University is following in threatening to deprive him of his previously-granted degree were not in place when he enrolled; and the members of the panel do not have the requisite qualifications to hear the allegations of plagiarism levied against Plaintiff. #1 Compl. 8-11. "The hallmarks of procedural due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard." Pugel v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Illinois, 378 F.3d 659, 662 (7th Cir. 2004). Here, Plaintiff attaches documents which show that he was informed of the nature of the allegations against him and he alleges that he is being given a pre-determination hearing to dispute those allegations. Plaintiff cites to no case law to support his arguments that the specific deficiencies he complains of would violate his due process rights. The Court has found cases which suggest that a university is not required to follow procedures that were in place before the misconduct occurred. See, e.g., Doe v. Haas, 479 F. Supp. 3d 336, 349 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). And, absent a claim that the panel is biased, the Court fails to see how having non-graduate-students and non-engineering-students on the panel makes the hearing fundamentally unfair. See Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652, 663 (7th Cir. 2019) (noting that "[w]hen a right is protected by the Due Process Clause, a state may not withdraw [it] on grounds of misconduct absent[] fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct has occurred" (alterations in original) (quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, even a departure from a school's own hearing rules does not necessarily violate due process. Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393, 407 (6th Cir. 2017) ("A school's departure from its own hearing rules amounts to a due process violation only when the departure results in a procedure which itself impinges on due process rights."). (MLM)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
