Harrell v. California State University

Background

Joshua Harrell, who represented himself, sued the Board of Trustees of the California State University (CSU) and eight individual CSU employees. Harrell was a student at San Jose State University (SJSU). His claims arose from two incidents.

On April 20, 2022, after Harrell completed a midterm exam at SJSU’s Alternative Testing Center, Sanchez-Ortega, Khanaka, Bravo, and Villavelasquez-Hill allegedly took his exam notes. The notes were later returned at Harrell’s professor’s request. The matter was referred to the Student Conduct and Ethical Development office, where Hutton resolved it on May 23, 2022, with a warning.

On June 3, 2022, Harrell was studying in a campus building after it had closed. He alleged that Lee and Zonsius arrested him for trespass. He later communicated with Day, SJSU’s vice president, while the incident was being resolved.

Harrell’s complaint asserted 13 claims: conversion; deprivation of property without due process; disability discrimination; retaliation based on protected First Amendment activity; retaliation for opposing unlawful activity; wrongful use of administrative proceedings; unlawful arrest without a warrant; unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment; failure to encourage education by suitable means; denial of the right to attend a safe, secure, and peaceful campus; denial of equal protection; breach of contract; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

The defendants argued that Harrell failed to provide the short and plain statement required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). The court disagreed. Because Harrell was representing himself, the court construed his claims liberally. It held that all 13 claims satisfied Rule 8 because each contained a short and plain statement explaining why Harrell believed he was entitled to relief. The court also stated that a complaint’s length alone does not violate Rule 8.

The defendants also argued that Harrell improperly joined unrelated claims and parties from the two incidents under Rules 18 and 20. The court held that Rule 18 allows a plaintiff to combine claims against the same defendant or defendants, while Rule 20 allows multiple defendants to be joined when the claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of occurrences and share a question of law or fact. The court found that the two incidents were close in time, allegedly reflected a pattern of aggressive behavior by CSU employees toward Harrell, and involved common issues in at least some claims. It therefore held that Harrell could pursue the claims in one lawsuit.

Finally, the defendants sought a more definite statement under Rule 12(e), which permits clarification when a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that a defendant cannot reasonably prepare a response. The court found that Harrell provided substantial factual detail and identified which claims he asserted against which defendants. It held that he did not need to provide a more definite statement.

Motion to Amend

Harrell moved under Rule 15(a) to file an amended complaint. The proposed amendment would add CSU and SJSU as defendants to the unlawful-arrest and unreasonable-search-and-seizure claims, rephrase the equal-protection claim as discrimination based on student status and limit that claim to specified defendants, and add a claim for arbitrary discrimination against CSU, SJSU, Lee, Zonsius, Day, and Hutton.

The defendants did not oppose amendment. Because this was Harrell’s first request to amend and the court found no undue delay or bad faith, the court granted the motion.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted Harrell’s motion to amend. The clerk was directed to file the First Amended Complaint. Defendants were ordered to file a responsive pleading or a motion under Rule 12(b) addressing the amended complaint within 21 days after the order was filed. The order did not decide whether Harrell’s allegations were ultimately true or whether he would prevail on his claims.