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.
