COLLEGE
REPUBLICANS )
OF STATE
UNIVERSITY )
OF NEW YORK- )
BINGHAMTON, )
Plaintiff )
v. )
BRIAN ROSE,
IN HIS )
OFFICIAL
CAPACITY )
AS VICE
PRESIDENT FOR )
STUDENT
AFFAIRS AT )
SUNY-BINGHAMTON,
and )
IN HISINDIVIDUAL )
CAPACITY, et
al. )
Defendants )
* * *
Count I:
Violation of First Amendment
(v. Brian Rose
in his Official Capacity)
* * *
Count II:
Violation of First Amendment
(v. Brian
Rose in his Individual Capacity)
The claims
arise from two incidents at the State University of New York (SUNY)-Binghamton,
in which ideologically adverse campus groups disrupted the College Republicans’
expressive events and university officials failed to protect the group’s speech.
The first was a “tabling” event on November 14, 2021 promoting an upcoming lecture
by renowned economist and president adviser Dr. Arthur Laffer (“Tabling Event”).
The second was Dr. Laffer’s lecture days later (“Laffer Event”), which ended
after fifteen minutes when protesters prevented Laffer from being heard and he
left the stage. Plaintiff alleges that Rose (and other university officials
named as defendants, who are not important for present purposes) allowed the
events to be interrupted; did nothing to protect plaintiff from the disrupting
crowd or to ensure its expressive events could continue; encouraged the
disruptions; and pushed the Republicans and their invited speaker to end both
events.
Rose moves
to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6). The court issues the following order:
1) Rose
Motion to Dismiss Count I--the official-capacity claim--is DENIED; Count I may
proceed. College Republicans of Binghamton sufficiently pleaded that its First
Amendment rights were violated because university officials failed to stop disruption
of the Tabling Event and disruption of the Laffer Event and failed to protect
plaintiff in the exercise of its First Amendment rights. The complaint
sufficiently pleads an ongoing violation and a risk of future violations of
plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by Rose in his official capacity.
2) Rose Motion to Dismiss Count II--the
individual-capacity claim--is GRANTED; Count II is DISMISSED. As described
above, plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that its First Amendment were violated by
the disruption of the two events; that fconclusion applies to the
individual-capacity claim and the official-capacity claim. (See Order ¶
1). But to hold a government-official defendant personally liable in an
individual capacity for damages, plaintiff must plead and prove an additional
element—that the government official, through that official’s own individual
actions, violated the Constitution. Tangretti v. Bachmann (2d Cir.
2020). Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient nonconclusory facts about Rose’s
personal actions with respect to either the Tabling Event or the Laffer Event
to plausibly show Rose’s individual connection to those violations. Count II is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; plaintiff may move to amend if discovery reveals
Rose’s personal involvement in the constitutional violations.
Rose files an
Answer to the official-capacity claim (Count I).
A Rule
16(b) Scheduling Order provides in relevant part:
1. Discovery
closes 90 days after all depositions have been taken.
2. Parties
may seek leave to amend at any time until 30 days after completion of the final
deposition.
3. The
court does not set a date for trial at this time. The court will confer with
the parties to set a trial date following the close of discovery, resolution of
dispositive motions, and completion of settlement efforts.
The case
proceeds to discovery. Plaintiff takes its final deposition on November 24,
2023; defendant takes its final deposition on December 30, 2023.
On January
15, 2024, plaintiff moves for leave to amend to add a claim for damages against
Rose in his individual capacity. The motion states that documents obtained in
discovery and deposition testimony from several witnesses provide new
information linking Rose to the Tabling and Laffer events and thus supporting an
individual-capacity claim.
The
proposed Amended Complaint (attached to the motion) repeats all factual
allegations of the original Complaint. It adds the individual-capacity claim as
Court II and includes the following new allegations:
52. Rose personally traveled to the Tabling Event
but chose not to intervene when protesters disrupted the event.
53. To
the contrary, Rose told several disruptive students and groups that he would
not stop their disruptive actions so long as no one was physically injured.
* * *
91. Rose told the chief of campus police to confront
the speaker at the Laffer Event and to encourage him to return to his plane and
cancel the event.
92. The chief of police, who reports to and is
supervised by Rose in the university hierarchy, followed those instructions.
* * *
102.
Rose observed the Laffer Event from a
conference room in university-police headquarters, saw the disruption occurring,
but did nothing to intervene.
Rose
opposes the motion for leave to amend.
For the
court, decide the motion.
