A federal judge from the Middle District of Pennsylvania has denied a student athlete’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which would have halted a season-long suspension from the baseball team related to the student athlete’s use of marijuana.
Central to the court’s ruling was its holding that the school did not violate the student athlete’s right to due process by not disclosing the potential penalty at the hearing phase, and, second, that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate the “irreparable harm” he would suffer with a suspension. On the latter, it found that the supposedly lost opportunity to demonstrate that he was capable of playing at the professional level was too “speculative” to meet the irreparable harm threshold.
Plaintiff Christopher E. Mattison was a full-time undergraduate student at East Stroudsburg University (ESU) in August of 2012, and a member of the ESU varsity baseball team.
Part of his agreement with the university called on him to comply with the express and implied terms of ESU’s student policies regarding academics, behavior and privacy as set forth in the Student Code of Conduct , which is stated in the 2012-2014 Student Handbook.
On October 1, 2012, an ESU police officer went to a dorm to investigate the possibility of the possession of a controlled substance. The officer found several students in (a dorm room), and although the plaintiff denied being in possession of marijuana, he admitted to the officer that he had smoked it earlier in the day.
Mattison was notified by written letter on October 4, 2012, “that he must attend a ‘meeting’ on October 16, 2012, with an unidentified person, for the events alleged to have occurred on October 1, 2012.” He attended the “meeting” and was informed by Hearing Officer Jeter Smith that he was going to “recommend a limited punishment,” which included “a deferred suspension, parental notification, attendance at the Marijuana 101 class and attendance at the Success Plan class.”
Mattison claimed that “at no time during this meeting (was his) status as a member of the ESU varsity baseball team discussed.”
Nevertheless, the plaintiff alleged that on October 16, 2012, he arrived for baseball practice and was advised by his coach that he was suspended from participation on the baseball team for the remainder of the 2012-2013 academic year in connection with the October 1incident.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ actions “deprive him of contractual and constitutional rights, ‘which have been to his great financial loss.’”
This is because he is a “professional baseball prospect recognized by Major League Baseball who cannot miss a collegiate baseball season without being removed from Major League Baseball’s prospect list.”
On January 7, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking reinstatement on the ESU varsity baseball team.
The court noted several issues it must consider when ruling on a plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction: (1) whether injunctive relief is available to the plaintiff despite the fact that the defendants are generally subject to immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment; (2) whether the plaintiff has a likelihood of success on the merits with regard to: (a) demonstrating a property interest in playing an intercollegiate sport and (b) showing a deprivation of due process; and (3) whether the plaintiff can demonstrate irreparable harm. The court is restrained by the concept that injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy, which should be granted only in limited circumstances.” Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson—Merck Consumer Pharms. Co., 290 F.3d 578, 586 (3d Cir.2002) (quotation and citation omitted).
The parties agreed that the immunity issue is irrelevant in the instant case. The court pushed forward to examine whether the plaintiff could “demonstrate that it will suffer irreparable harm if its request for an injunction does not issue.”
Of relevance was the plaintiff’s counsel concession that “there is sparse evidence to support the contention that the plaintiff has, in the words of the court, ‘at least a reasonable likelihood of becoming a professional baseball player.’”
After all, “no team has provided a letter of intent to the plaintiff nor is there a ‘guarantee’ that the plaintiff will be a professional baseball player. As the defendants noted in their oral argument, predictions concerning possible harm to the future career of a college athlete do not rise to the level of concrete constitutional injury necessary to form the basis for a preliminary injunction. ‘The interest in future professional careers must . . . be considered speculative and not of constitutional dimensions.’ Colorado Seminary (University of Denver) v. Na. Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 417 F. Supp. 885, 895 (D. Col. 1976). Similarly, in St. Patrick High School v. New Jersey Interscholastic Athletic Associations, the District of New Jersey found:
“Several courts in this Circuit, as well as ‘other federal courts, have … held that ineligibility for participation in interscholastic athletic competitions alone does not constitute irreparable harm.’ Dziewa v. Pa. Interscholastic Ath. Ass’n, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3062, at * 17-18, 2009 WL 113419 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 16, 2009); Sharon City Sch. Dist. v. Pa. Interscholastic Ath. Ass’n, 2009 U .S. Dist. LEXIS 13037, at *4-8, 2009 WL 427373 (W.D.Pa.2009) (collecting cases; stating that ‘[b]ecause Plaintiffs failed to identify any irreparable harm, I need not hold a hearing prior to issuing an order denying injunctive relief’); Cruz v. P.I.A.A., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17521, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 15, 2000) (denying a request for preliminary injunctive relief because ‘[n]ot being able to play on game day is certainly a disappointment but does not in my judgment constitute the type of harm warranting the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief.’)
St. Patrick High Sch. v. New Jersey Interscholastic Athletic Associations, No. 10-948, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17993, 2010 WL 715826, at * 4 (D.N.J. Mar. 1, 2010).
“Given that the plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence to support his claim that he will face immediate, irreparable harm without the issuance of an injunction, the court cannot grant the plaintiff ‘s request for such extraordinary relief.”
Christopher E. Mattison v. East Stroudsburg University and Doreen Tobin; M.D. Pa.; 3:12-cv-2557, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52579; 4/12/13
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff): Scott M. Wilhelm, LEAD ATTORNEY, Winegar, Wilhelm, Glynn & Roemersma, P.C., Phillipsburg, NJ. (for defendants) M. Abbegael Giunta, Office of Attorney General, Harrisburg, PA; Page Darney, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, Lititgation Section, Harrisburg, PA.
