## Facts

- James M. Picozzi was a second-year student at the University of Michigan Law School and lived in Lawyers Club student housing.
- Around 4:00 a.m. on March 8, 1983, a fire broke out in Picozzi’s room. Picozzi escaped through a third-floor window and suffered serious injuries, including burns and a fractured vertebra, requiring extended hospitalization and a body cast for months.
- Because Picozzi could not complete the Winter 1983 term, the law school administratively disenrolled him for the remainder of that term. The parties disputed whether the disenrollment occurred at his father’s request to help obtain tuition and housing rebates.
- University and police investigators concluded the fire was intentionally set and came to suspect Picozzi as the person who started it, though the record did not show a criminal conviction arising from the incident.
- Terrance Sandalow, the dean of the law school, told Picozzi he would not be permitted to reenroll unless he either (1) took a polygraph examination concerning the fire or (2) prevailed in an administrative hearing.
- Picozzi rejected those conditions and demanded that Sandalow provide an unconditional letter stating Picozzi remained a student in “good standing,” which Picozzi wanted to use to transfer to another law school.
- Sandalow declined to provide an unqualified “good standing” letter, stating he could provide only a letter explaining the unresolved circumstances surrounding the fire.
- Picozzi filed suit in federal court asserting constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (due process and equal protection) and a breach-of-contract claim. After the parties agreed to an administrative hearing that addressed injunctive relief, the case proceeded on Picozzi’s claim for damages, with cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Picozzi had a Fourteenth Amendment property interest in continued enrollment or “good standing” at the law school (including an unqualified good-standing letter) such that conditioning reenrollment on a polygraph or hearing required federal procedural due process protections.
2. Whether the dean’s handling of the arson suspicion and refusal to issue an unqualified good-standing letter infringed a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest based on reputational stigma.
3. Whether the challenged actions violated equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
4. Whether alleged violations of university policies or an asserted student-school contract supplied a basis for § 1983 damages in federal court.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for Dean Sandalow and denied Picozzi’s request for summary judgment, disposing of the remaining § 1983 damages claim.
- The court concluded Picozzi did not show a federally protected property interest in continued enrollment, “good standing,” or an unconditional good-standing letter under the circumstances presented.
- The court rejected Picozzi’s liberty-interest theory because reputational harm, without the type of accompanying legal-status change required by governing precedent, did not amount to a constitutional deprivation.
- The court rejected the equal protection claim on the record presented.
- The court treated Picozzi’s contract and internal-policy arguments as matters of state law or school governance that did not, by themselves, create a federal constitutional claim for damages under § 1983.

## Legal Principles

- Property interests protected by procedural due process are not created by the Constitution; they arise from an independent source (such as state law or binding rules) that gives a person a legitimate claim of entitlement, not merely a desire or expectation.
- A student’s disagreement with academic or administrative decisions, or with conditions placed on reenrollment during a serious misconduct inquiry, does not become a federal due process case unless the student can first identify a protected property interest.
- Reputational injury alone is not a Fourteenth Amendment liberty deprivation; to state a constitutional claim, stigma must be coupled with a qualifying change in legal status or comparable governmental action recognized by federal law.
- Equal protection liability generally requires proof of differential treatment compared to similarly situated persons and the absence of a sufficient governmental justification under the applicable level of review.
- Alleged breaches of contract or failures to follow internal university procedures ordinarily sound in state law and do not automatically establish a deprivation of a federally protected right actionable for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

## Conclusion

The court held that a law student suspected of starting a dormitory fire failed to establish a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest in continued enrollment, “good standing,” or an unconditional good-standing letter, and therefore could not recover § 1983 damages based on the dean’s decision to condition reenrollment on a polygraph or an administrative hearing and to decline an unqualified certification of good standing.


Picozzi v. Sandalow, 623 F. Supp. 1571 (1986)