## Facts

- Two University of Maine undergraduate students, Stefan Gomes and Paris Minor, were accused by a female student of sexual assault.
- The complainant filed both a police report with the Old Town Police Department and an incident report with the University, triggering disciplinary proceedings under the Student Conduct Code.
- A University Judicial Officer investigated the allegation, obtained the complainant’s police statement through the district attorney, and referred the matter to a Student Conduct Code Hearing Committee.
- The Hearing Committee conducted a hearing on September 25, 2002; Gomes and Minor were represented by counsel, presented evidence, and examined and cross-examined witnesses.
- The Hearing Committee found both students responsible for sexual assault under the Code and suspended each for one year.
- The students pursued internal appeals to the Student Conduct Code Appeals Committee and then to the President’s designee; both affirmed.
- The students filed a federal action asserting, among other claims, § 1983 procedural due process violations, contract claims based on University materials, and state-law tort claims.
- The due process claim focused on the University’s failure to provide the complainant’s police statement to the students before the hearing, despite the Judicial Officer’s access to it.

## Issues

1. Whether the University’s disciplinary process, including non-disclosure of the complainant’s police statement and alleged bias/structural defects, violated procedural due process under § 1983.
2. Whether the Student Conduct Code and related materials created enforceable contractual duties that the University breached by alleged procedural deviations.
3. Whether state-law tort claims arising from the disciplinary proceedings were supported by the record and/or barred by immunity under the Maine Tort Claims Act.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to all defendants on all remaining claims.
- The court held the disciplinary proceedings provided constitutionally sufficient notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, satisfying procedural due process.
- The court rejected a constitutional requirement that the University provide criminal-style discovery or disclose Brady-type material in this setting.
- The court found no competent evidence of actual bias or an unacceptable risk of bias from committee members or from the Judicial Officer’s combined investigative/prosecutorial functions.
- The court held the University substantially complied with the Student Conduct Code and did not breach any enforceable contractual obligation.
- The court held the tort claims failed on the merits and were also barred by immunity under the Maine Tort Claims Act, with no waiver shown through insurance coverage.

## Legal Principles

- In university discipline, procedural due process generally requires timely notice of charges and a meaningful opportunity to be heard; the required procedures are flexible and assessed for fundamental fairness.
- The Constitution does not require universities to provide the full set of criminal trial protections, including criminal-style discovery or Brady-like disclosure duties, in student disciplinary hearings.
- Decisionmakers in administrative or educational proceedings are presumed impartial; a due process violation based on bias requires concrete evidence of actual bias or circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias.
- The combination of investigative and prosecutorial functions in one official does not, by itself, establish a due process violation absent additional proof of unfairness.
- University codes and publications may have contractual effect, but liability generally requires a material failure to substantially comply with specific, definite promises.
- Governmental entities and employees acting within the scope of employment are generally immune from tort liability under the Maine Tort Claims Act absent a statutory exception or a proven waiver.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the University’s disciplinary process was fundamentally fair despite non-disclosure of the complainant’s police statement, that the University substantially complied with any enforceable code-based obligations, and that the remaining tort claims were both unproven and barred by governmental immunity, warranting summary judgment for the defendants.


Gomes v. Univ. of Me. Sys., 365 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D. Me. 2005)