Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 1 of 21

PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
______________________________________________________________________________
ERNEST SUTTLES,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. _________________
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS,
Defendant
______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF TITLE IX,
DENIAL OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS AND
BREACH OF CONTRACT
______________________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF, ERNEST SUTTLES, by and through undersigned
counsel of record, who complains of breach of contract, denial of his Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process Rights, and for violations of title IX against the Defendant, University of Memphis and in
support thereof would state as follows:
THE NATURE OF THE ACTION
This action arises from an egregious miscarriage of justice against Plaintiff through the
University of Memphis’ (“the University”) flawed and biased Title IX sexual misconduct process,
carried out under a presumption of guilt, and willful ignorance of major inconsistencies in the
complainant, “Jane Roe’s,” false allegations of nonconsensual sexual contact against Plaintiff.
Concerns with Jane Roe’s credibility were never raised by University investigators, nor was her
account questioned, and vital witnesses were ignored, because the University of Memphis trains
its staff to adopt a trauma-informed approach which discourages the thorough questioning of
complainants in the sexual misconduct process to avoid further trauma.

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 2 of 21

PageID 2

Without sufficient supporting evidence, the University suspended Plaintiff from the
campus—who was only 1 year away from completing his Master’s Degree—for a period of time
now spanning almost two years. At the time, Plaintiff—who in 2013 was the Glenn Jones
Defensive Scout Team Player of the Year, a 2017 Scholar Athlete of the month, a defensive starter
for the University of Memphis football team and a member of the winningest recruiting class in
the history of Tiger Football, was enrolled and on his way to a degree and a chance at a career in
the NFL. As a result of this allegation and suspension, he lost his scholarship, reputation, job
prospects and a potential career in the NFL. This lawsuit comes as a result of those losses.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has federal question, diversity and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because: (i) the federal law claims arise under
the constitution and statutes of the United States; and (ii) the state law claims are so closely
related to the federal law claims as to form the same case controversy under Article III of the
United States Constitution.
2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant University of Memphis on the ground that
it is conducting business within and is an instrumentality of the State of Tennessee within the
jurisdiction and venue of this Court.
PARTIES
3. The Plaintiff Ernest Suttles is a resident and citizen of Shelby County, Tennessee. During all
times mentioned herein, he was a student at the University of Memphis and a member of the
Football team.

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 3 of 21

PageID 3

4. The University of Memphis is a publicly funded University in the State of Tennessee. At all
times herein it was an instrumentality of the State of Tennessee and is subject to the jurisdiction
of this Court.
FACTS
1. Mr. Suttles Background and Financial Aid Agreements with the University.
5. Mr. Ernest Suttles, the Plaintiff, was a highly sought-after football recruit in the high school
class of 2013. He originally committed to the University of Nebraska and thereafter transferred
to the University of Memphis. From the time he enrolled at the University of Memphis, the
institution offered him a series of financial aid agreements, in exchange for his participation
on the school’s football team.
6. For the 2017-2018 Academic Year the University of Memphis offered the Plaintiff a football
scholarship as had been offered every year he had been enrolled. This agreement was signed
by both the Director of Athletics on behalf of the University and by Mr. Suttles. The date of
this agreement was 7/27/17. As a result of this agreement, the University agreed to provide
financial aid to the Plaintiff and agreed to the following conditions and guidelines for that aid
in a written financial aid agreement signed by all parties:
University of Memphis Athletic Grant In Aid Guidelines
Athletic grant in aid may be reduced or rescinded during the period of the award if
a student athlete is found to have engaged in activities in violation of team,
academic, Athletic Department, or University policies, as well as all NCAA rules
and regulations…..
NCAA Division I Rules and Regulations Concerning Athletic Aid
15.3.4.2 Reduction or Cancellation Permitted
…(c ) engages in serious misconduct warranting substantial disciplinary penalty…
7. Furthermore, NCAA regulations specifically mandate that such a reduction or cancellation of
aid may only occur after a student -athlete has been provided an opportunity for a hearing per

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 4 of 21

PageID 4

Bylaw 15.3.2.3. Ernest Suttles agreed to these terms and conditions and relied upon the
promises of the University of Memphis to provide the financial aid and due process protections
this agreement expressly stated would exist by playing football for the school after signing this
agreement.
8. Pursuant to this agreement, the Plaintiff, Ernest Suttles participated in the University of
Memphis Football program and maintained all terms and conditions of his financial aid
agreement. On or about October 15, 2017 Plaintiff Ernest Suttles was arrested and charged
with rape. This allegation was then and is now, completely false. A woman he had been dating
previously, hereinafter referred to as “Jane Roe”, lodged this accusation. 1.
9. After this accusation was made, the Memphis Police Department posted news of this arrest on
its Twitter Account. On the date of the arrest, the University of Memphis was scheduled to
play the Navy Midshipmen. Mr. Suttles was at the team hotel preparing for the game that
morning. He was arrested on this false rape charge at the team hotel and escorted out of the
facility by the Memphis Police Department.
10. By 12:00 p.m. on October 15, 2017, before the Navy game had even been completed, the
University of Memphis had taken punitive actions against Mr. Suttles, without notice to him
or any advance warning or hearing. Clearly, the University of Memphis made a decision
regarding Suttles guilt or innocence: It kicked him off the football team summarily by halftime
of the Navy game. In doing so, University of Memphis issued the following statement flatly
stating that Suttles had committed a violation of the University of Memphis team rules:
“…Ernest Suttles has been dismissed from the University of Memphis football
team for a violation of team rules in an off campus incident. As was communicated
in an earlier statement, Settles has been removed from campus while this matter is
reviewed by the Office of Student Accountability, Outreach and Support for
1

Jane Roe is a pseudonym.

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 5 of 21

PageID 5

violations of the UofM Student Code of Conduct. During the ongoing investigation,
no additional comments will be made…”
11. On Monday October 16, 2017, before Mr. Suttles had posted his bond on the criminal
complaint the University of Memphis issued a “Notice of Complaint” by way of an email to
him. This Notice of Complaint advised him of the charge made and of the procedure to contest
this allegation.
12. Additionally, on October 16, 2017 the Office for Institutional Equity at the University of
Memphis emailed one of the Plaintiff’s professors to explain the reason that he was unable to
attend classes. This email clearly stated that he was barred from attending classes due to their
investigation, which at that time, had not been completed. In fact, this investigation would
never be completed and remains incomplete to this day.
13. One immediate sanction levied by the University of Memphis was to bar Ernest Suttles from
attending his classes or even setting foot on the campus of the University of Memphis. This,
despite the fact that the accuser, Jane Roe, was not enrolled in ANY of the same classes he was
enrolled in, did not frequent any of the buildings he was required to travel to for class and did
not share the same major.

In fact, shortly after this accusation was levied, Jane Roe left

campus and disenrolled from the University of Memphis by the Spring 2018 semester.
Nonetheless, the Plaintiff was still was restricted from attending classes or being on the campus
of the University of Memphis. These sanctions were never lifted, and the Plaintiff is still not
allowed on campus to this day.
14. Pursuant to the Notice of Complaint, the University of Memphis promised to investigate the
allegations of rape. The Plaintiff cooperated with this investigation. In furtherance of that
cooperation, the Plaintiff informed the University investigators, that his roommate was present
at the time of the alleged offense and would provide exculpatory information. This witness’

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 6 of 21

PageID 6

information would be that no incident occurred in the home on the date alleged by Jane Roe.
Inexplicably however, the University’s investigators never interviewed this witness before or
after imposing what it called, ”interim measures” against the Plaintiff, barring him from
campus, kicking him off the football team and branding him as a rapist in public.
15. As of Monday January 22, 2018 the University of Memphis and its lead investigator Kenny
Anderson were still promising to complete the investigation. He emailed the Plaintiff and
advised that the interim sanctions could stay in place even if he completed his report:
Earnest:
I still anticipate completing my report by the end of next week, but I wanted to alert
you to the fact that it is not the end of the process necessarily. Both parties will
have a right to appeal my findings and that would extend the process and interim
measures that are currently in place. Also, if a policy violation was established by
the investigation (hypothetically mentioned here only for clarity sake), then the
Office of Student Conduct, Outreach and Accountability would determine any
sanctions and both parties would also have the right to appeal their decision.
I explain all of that to say that the completion of the process could last an additional
month if either party utilizes their appeal rights. Thus, I wanted to provide this
information so you could make a fully informed decision regarding your academic
options.
Sincerely,
Kenneth P. Anderson
Director   Title IX Coordinator
Office for Institutional Equity
16. This email made it clear to the Plaintiff that there would be no hearing, beyond the initial
interview conducted by Mr. Anderson and that he would have to be subjected to the interim
sanctions while an appeal was filed, again, before a final adjudication of this complaint. All
of this was months after the initial notice of complaint. Finally, even this email was inaccurate
because Mr. Anderson NEVER completed his report and there never was an appeal. The case
remains open.

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 7 of 21

PageID 7

2. Policies In Place at the University of Memphis regarding Sexual Misconduct
17. Despite how this investigation was conducted in reality, there was a policy that existed at the
University of Memphis which explained its Sexual Misconduct Policy. At the time of the
incident the University of Memphis had enacted Policy GE 2031 – Sexual Misconduct and
Domestic Violence Policy. This policy has scant information in it to protect the due process
rights of the accused.
18. For example, in that policy, the University spells out the training it gives its employees and
designees involved in the investigation or adjudication of alleged violations of the policy. This
training makes no mention of protecting any rights of the accused:
Training of University parties. All University employees or designees involved
in the investigation or adjudication of alleged violations of this policy will receive
annual training on issues related to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, and stalking and the process for conducting an investigation and hearing
that protects the safety of complainants and promotes accountability of members of
the University community.
19. Additionally, Policy GE2031 states that the University will make all reasonable efforts to
resolve or conclude the investigation and resolve the complaint within sixty calendar days. It
states:
Time Frames. All time frames expressed in this policy are meant to be guidelines
rather than rigid requirements. Every reasonable effort shall be made to conclude
the investigation and resolve the complaint within sixty (60) calendar days
following receipt of the complaint. Within this sixty (60) day time frame, it is
expected that the Investigator will conclude the investigation, prepare a written
report and finding, and notify the parties in writing of the determination. This
timeframe does not include any appeal as the result of a request by either party. If
an appeal hearing is requested, every reasonable effort shall be made to conclude
the appeal process within thirty (30) days following the University’s receipt of the
appeal request. If the Investigator or Hearing Officer determines that additional
time is needed, both parties shall be notified in writing of the delay, the anticipated
date that the investigation or hearing will be concluded, and the reasons for such
delay. If either party determines that additional time is needed, that party shall
request such in writing to either the Investigator (if no initial determination has been

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 8 of 21

PageID 8

made) or Hearing Officer (if a request for hearing has been received by the
institution). The written request for additional time shall include the reasons for the
requested delay and the number of additional days needed.
20. The fact that these polices contained no protections for the rights of the accused was
compounded by the way the investigation into this incident was conducted. First, the Plaintiff
gave a statement to the University of Memphis after he was released from jail. In that statement
he denied raping Jane Roe. He also provided to the University of Memphis investigators the
name and contact information for the only witness to the event, Christian Johnson. The
University of Memphis investigators failed to follow up with this witness, failed to take a
statement or even call.
21. Once an interview was conducted of the Plaintiff by the investigators for the University of
Memphis, it was clear they had the wrong date or had been given the wrong date for this alleged
incident. This matter was corrected only after the Plaintiff himself, advised the University of
Memphis that their information was incorrect, demonstrating his cooperation with the
University’s process.
22. After a meeting with Kenneth Anderson, the Title IX coordinator, and Natasha Dexter, no
decision was rendered by the University of Memphis within sixty days of the Notice of
Complaint. As of this date, there has never been a decision regarding this Notice of Complaint.
Therefore, the Plaintiff has been unable to appeal for over twenty months. Nonetheless, during
the time this matter has been pending, all of the so-called “interim restrictions” put in place
have been applied for the entire time period and have never been rescinded. The specific
restrictions were:
1) The Plaintiff has been barred from physically being on the campus of the University of
Memphis;

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 9 of 21

PageID 9

2) He has been barred from taking any classes other than through remote means;
3) He has been barred from taking in person exams
4) His financial aid agreement was cut off, leaving him without money and means to pay
any of his expenses;
5) Kicked off the football team.
23. These restrictions have had a devastating effect on the Plaintiff; first the press release of the
University of Memphis was rebroadcast around the country, effectively branding the Plaintiff
has a rapist. Secondly after publishing this accusation, the Plaintiff’s opportunities for an NFL
career vanished: he stopped receiving any interest regarding potential senior bowl invites or
any other activities which could have brought him a career path into the NFL.
24. The Plaintiff finally received a Master of Business Administration degree through his online
study at the University of Memphis, which he completed on his own without the financial aid
he was promised by the University. However, he was unable to gain employment using that
degree due to the stigma of the rape allegation published by the University of Memphis. The
Plaintiff has been forced to obtain employment at below the salary his educational level would
demand in the open market if not for the public shaming conducted by the University of
Memphis from its press releases and ostracization. The press release from the University
regarding this case and the Title IX investigation was rebroadcast and disseminated through
national wire services and national internet news agencies, giving it wide circulation and
spreading the image of the Plaintiff as a rapist nationwide.2
3. The University of Memphis’ Response to a White Male Student Accused of Rape is
Markedly Different than the Response to the Charge involving the Plaintiff

2

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/21023263/ernest-suttles-memphis-tigers-charged-rapedismissed-team

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 10 of 21

PageID 10

25. The University of Memphis has not acted punitively and arbitrarily against other students that
have been accused of rape. Sadly, this divergent approach by the University has been applied
on the basis of the race of the accused. In an identical case, a 20 year-old white male student
was allowed to attend classes after an incident in which he was accused of raping another
student, which allegedly happened in a private home in April 2017. He specifically was
allowed to attend classes after he was indicted in August 2017, unlike the Plaintiff. As of
October 2017, he was still allowed to attend classes in person and was not subject to the
“interim measures” the University of Memphis employed against Suttles. 3
26. In fact, the statement the University of Memphis issued in response to this rape allegation
against a white male was markedly different than the one issued when a black man, ( i.e., the
Plaintiff) was accused of rape. The statement in the case involving a white male alleged
assailant issued by U of M President David Rudd, in the midst of campus protests against this
student’s presence on campus, was as follows:
Dear Campus Community:
It is deeply disturbing whenever there are reports of potential criminal behavior that
involve and impact our students and our campus. The safety of our students, and all
on our campus, is paramount. When reports of potential criminal behavior emerge,
the University of Memphis follows a deliberate series of steps to ensure safety,
guard confidentiality of all involved, and allow for due process. In all reports of
potential criminal behavior, we encourage and support the reporting party to pursue
criminal charges, related potential investigation and potential prosecution. In cases
where criminal charges are filed and an investigation is initiated by the local police
for incidents that occur off campus, the UofM is dependent on the findings of that
investigation in order to take action if one of our students is involved. A
complainant can choose to hold their campus matter in abeyance while the criminal
matter is proceeding. When evidence emerges and the fact pattern is established,
the UofM is able to take definite action consistent with the legal requirement of due
process. Over the past several years we have removed students from our campus
when the evidence and fact pattern supports such an action. We will certainly

3

https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/crime/2017/10/12/alleged-rape-cases-roil-university-memphiscampus/756565001/

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 11 of 21

PageID 11

continue to do so, but we will also do so in accordance with local, state and federal
laws.
While investigations are being completed and evidence gathered, either on campus
or by the local police, the University of Memphis provides support, services and a
range of resources to those impacted by potential criminal behavior. We are a
community and country governed by the rule of law, and we will follow those laws
and provide due process throughout. When the facts of investigations are
established and evidence gathered, we have not hesitated to take the harshest
position possible for criminal activity on our campus. The University of Memphis
will continue to do so. If you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to
reach out.
Regards,
M. David Rudd
President/Distinguished University Professor
27. These “respect the rule of law” comments were absent in the press release regarding the arrest
of Ernest Suttles.

The commitment to due process, expressly stated in this release is

conspicuously absent in the press release regarding Ernest Suttles. The Statement in full was
as follows:
“…Ernest Suttles has been dismissed from the University of Memphis football
team for a violation of team rules in an off campus incident. As was communicated
in an earlier statement, Settles has been removed from campus while this matter is
reviewed by the Office of Student Accountability, Outreach and Support for
violations of the UofM Student Code of Conduct. During the ongoing investigation,
no additional comments will be made…”
28. This statement ended Ernest Suttles football career forever and branded him as a rapist without
the presumption of innocence.
COUNT I
Violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
29. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth
herein.

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 12 of 21

PageID 12

30. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides, in relevant part, that: “No person in
the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance.”
31. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 applies to all public and private educational
institutions that receive federal funding, which includes Defendant University of Memphis.
32. The University of Memphis is part of the Tennessee State Board of Regents Systems, with its
principal administrative offices in Knoxville, Tennessee. The University of Memphis is
authorized, supervised and funded by the State of Tennessee pursuant to the Tennessee
Constitution. It is also funded by the Federal Government and received
33. Students attending public universities such as the University of Memphis who have been
accused of sexual misconduct, have a right to due process under Title IX. See U.S. Dep’t of
Education, Office for Civil Rights, Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of
Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties -- Title IX (2001) at 22 (the
“2001 OCR Guidance”); April 2011 Dear Colleague Letter at 12.
34. Both the Department of Education and the Department of Justice have promulgated regulations
under Title IX that require a school to “adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for
the prompt and equitable resolution of student... complaints alleging any action which would
be prohibited by” Title IX or regulations thereunder. 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(b) (Dep’t of
Education); 28 C.F.R. § 54.135(b) (Dep’t of Justice) (emphasis added). Such prohibited actions
include all forms of sexual harassment, including sexual intercourse, sexual assault, and rape. 4

4

See generally U.S. Dep’t of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment
of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties -- Title IX (2001) at 19-20, 21 & nn. 98-101.

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 13 of 21

PageID 13

35. The “prompt and equitable” procedures that a school must implement include, at a minimum:
i. “Notice . . . of the procedure, including where complaints may be filed”;
ii. “Application of the procedure to complaints alleging [sexual] harassment...”;
iii. “Adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation of complaints, including the
opportunity to present witnesses and other evidence”;
iv. “Designated and reasonably prompt timeframes for the major stages of the
complaint process”; and
v. “Notice to the parties of the outcome of the complaint......”
36. Title IX Coordinators should not have a conflict of interest. “For example, serving as Title IX
coordinator and a disciplinary hearing board member may create a conflict of interest.” April
2011 Dear Colleague Letter at 7; August 2015 Dear Colleague Letter at 2-3.
37. Title IX may be violated by a school’s imposition of university discipline where race is a
motivating factor in the decision to discipline.
38. In this case the University of Memphis breached its duties to the Plaintiff under Title IX. It
committed a series of acts which brazenly violated the Plaintiff’s rights and caused him damage
which continue as of the date of the filing of this Complaint.
39. The University of Memphis breached the duty to the Plaintiff by failing to complete the
investigation of this complaint within sixty days, as required by its own policy and by the
provisions of Title IX. Once the Plaintiff received a Notice of Complaint in October 2017, the
University had a responsibility under Title IX and its own policy to designate reasonably
prompt timeframes for the major parts of the investigation. Its own policy sets out sixty days
as the amount of time allotted for this investigation and resolution. It failed to meet this
requirement as the investigation was never concluded. There has been no written finding
issued to the Plaintiff.

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 14 of 21

PageID 14

40. The University never conducted a fair and thorough investigation of the Complaint. As noted
previously, there was only one possible eyewitness who could have been interviewed,
Christian Johnson. However, for whatever reason the University of Memphis’ investigators
and Title IX Coordinator Kenneth Anderson never contacted this witness. The failure to even
interview or place a telephone call to the only potential witness to the event renders any
investigation incomplete on a basic and fundamental level.
41. Additionally, the University of Memphis never conducted a hearing of this Title IX complaint,
in blatant violation of the Act. As a result of this failure to conduct a hearing, the Plaintiff was
not allowed to attend the hearing wherein the Complainant testified, and he did as well. He
was not allowed the opportunity to hear the testimony or the statement given by Jane Roe. He
was not allowed to have his counsel present at a hearing to confront his accuser or crossexamine her statement. The failure to conduct a hearing denied the Plaintiff of the fundamental
bedrock principle of due process. The University of Memphis’ policy simply ignored this
right.
42. The University of Memphis violated Title IX by employing the “interim sanctions” against
Ernest Suttles without the benefit of a hearing or an opportunity to defend himself against the
charges.

As noted previously within hours of being arrested and before the Notice of

Complaint was issued on Monday October 17, 2017 the University kicked Mr. Suttles off the
Football team. His financial aid was therefore cut before he could post his bond and leave jail
during that first 48 hours after being arrested. All of this was in clear violation of the financial
aid agreement and denied him the due process that Title IX guaranteed him. 5

5

Although Mr. Suttles received the Notice of Complaint on the Monday following the Memphis-Navy Football
game, it is clear that the decision to deny him due process was made earlier. The date of the Notice of Complaint
was issued and signed by Kenneth Anderson was October 14, 2017, even before Suttles was aware of the charge.

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 15 of 21

PageID 15

43. Based on the foregoing, University of Memphis failed to conduct an adequate, reliable, and
impartial investigation of Jane Roe’s complaint. Due to this failure to conduct an adequate,
reliable and impartial investigation, the Plaintiff suffered damages, which include but are not
limited to, psychological damages and counseling and treatment expenses, loss of his financial
aid and income, embarrassment and humiliation due to his banishment from the University and
other damages to be enumerated at trial.
COUNT II
42 U.S.C. §1983: Denial of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
44. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth herein.
45. The University of Memphis was responsible for implementing the Student Conduct Code, and
enforcing the financial aid agreement and adhering to NCAA regulations which were
incorporated by reference into that agreement with the Plaintiff.

Additionally, it was

responsible for providing the Plaintiff due process under Title IX in regard to the Notice of
Complaint.
46. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state shall
“deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” A similar right
is stated in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
47. Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code provides in pertinent part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to
be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction
thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. . . .

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 16 of 21

PageID 16

48. A person has a protected property interest in pursuing his education, as well as in future
educational and employment opportunities and occupational liberty, of which he cannot be
deprived without due process.
49. Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected property interest in his continued enrollment at University
of Memphis and to be free from arbitrary suspension and dismissal arises from the policies,
courses of conduct, practices and understandings established by University of Memphis.
50. Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected property interest further arises from the express and
implied contractual relationship between University of Memphis and Plaintiff.
51. It is well established that Fourteenth Amendment due process protections are required in higher
education disciplinary proceedings.
52. University of Memphis, a state university, is part of a system of public universities created by
the State of Tennessee and administered by the State Board of Regents. The University of
Memphis is authorized, supervised and funded by the State of Tennessee. Therefore, the
University of Memphis has a duty to provide its students equal protection and due process of
law by and through any and all procedures set forth by the University.
53. Plaintiff had obeyed all institutional rules when he was wrongly suspended from University of
Memphis and the University of Memphis football team.
54. In resolving the Notice of Complaint filed herein, the Plaintiff was entitled to a process

commensurate with the seriousness of the allegations and the potential discipline, sanctions,
and repercussions he was facing. Plaintiff was deprived of a fundamentally fair process.
Plaintiff’s right to due process was violated when the University of Memphis suspended him
without notice and a hearing due to the complaint of Jane Roe, and punished him and publicly
branded him as a rapist and a violator of team rules.

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 17 of 21

PageID 17

55. The University of Memphis deprived Plaintiff of his liberty and property interests without
affording him basic due process, including but not limited to, his right to be notified of the
charges against him, his right to a fair adjudication, his right to be heard by an impartial
factfinder, to question his accuser and to have a speedy and prompt resolution of the charges
against him within a reasonable amount of time. The liberty and property interests include but
was not limited to the restriction of his ability to enter and move about a public university
campus, the deprivation of his financial aid, to which he had a contractual right to be awarded,
and the loss of any and all rights and privileges he was entitled to enjoy as a student athlete at
the University of Memphis.
56. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of the foregoing deprivations of due process, Plaintiff
sustained damages, including, without limitation, loss of educational and career opportunities,
economic injuries and other direct and consequential damages as outlined previously in this
Complaint. Specifically the Plaintiff has been damaged by a) the loss of financial aid which
he was entitled to as a result of his financial aid agreement, in an amount to be proven at trial;
2) the loss of employment opportunities from his attaining the Masters of Business
Administration Degree, due to the public branding of him as a rapist by the University of
Memphis; 3) the loss of any hope of a career as a result of being kicked off the football team
at the University of Memphis as a senior, literally months before the pro day and senior bowl
honors; 4) counseling and therapy costs incurred as a result of being traumatized by the conduct
of the University of Memphis; and 5) any and all other damages in any amounts to be proved
at trial.
COUNT III
Breach of Contract Against University of Memphis

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 18 of 21

PageID 18

57. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth
herein.
58. At all times relevant hereto, a contractual relationship existed between University of Memphis
and Plaintiff through a) the Plaintiff’s Financial Aid Agreements with the University of
Memphis; and b) University of Memphis’s policies and procedures governing the student
disciplinary system, including but not limited to the Student Conduct Code and the University
of Memphis Sexual Harassment Policy, GE2031.
59. Through the documents it publishes and provides to students, University of Memphis makes
express contractual commitments to students involved in a disciplinary process, as well as in
this case, student athletes with financial aid agreements. One specific commitment is to fulfill
the financial aid obligations and not cease those payments unless and until the student athlete
has been afforded due process as required by that agreement, and the applicable NCAA
regulations.
60. Based on the foregoing, University of Memphis created express and implied contracts with
Plaintiff that he would be afforded due process before being removed from financial aid and
before suffering any interim restrictions such as those employed in this case.
61. Based on the aforementioned facts and circumstances, University of Memphis breached
express and/or implied agreement(s) with Plaintiff by the commission of the following acts: a)
it suspended the Plaintiff from physically entering the campus of the University of Memphis
without notice and a hearing, when such restriction was not warranted or necessary under the
circumstances; especially when the Plaintiff had no classes with the complainant and did not
even attend classes in the same building at any time; b) when it cut off the Plaintiff’s financial
aid, in violation of the financial aid agreement which specifically granted him due process; 3)

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 19 of 21

PageID 19

when it failed to provide due process by conducting a hearing on the complaints of Jane Roe;
and d) when it failed to investigate these charges which would include interviewing the
Plaintiff’s exculpatory witness.
62. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of the foregoing breaches, Plaintiff sustained
damages, including, without limitation, loss of educational and career opportunities, economic
injuries and other direct and consequential damages as outlined previously in this Complaint.
Specifically the Plaintiff has been damaged by a) the loss of financial aid which he was entitled
to as a result of his financial aid agreement, in an amount to be proven at trial; 2) the loss of
employment opportunities from his attaining the Masters of Business Administration Degree,
due to the public branding of him as a rapist by the University of Memphis; 3) the loss of any
hope of a career as a result of being kicked off the football team at the University of Memphis
as a senior, literally months before the pro day and senior bowl honors; 4) counseling and
therapy costs incurred as a result of being traumatized by the conduct of the University of
Memphis; and 5) any and all other damages in any amounts to be proved at trial.
63. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at
trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as
follows:
1. On the first count for violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a judgment
against University of Memphis awarding Plaintiff damages in an amount to be determined at
trial, including, without limitation, damages to physical well-being, emotional and
psychological damages, damages to reputation, past and future economic losses, loss of

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 20 of 21

PageID 20

educational opportunities, and loss of future career prospects, plus prejudgment interest,
attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs and disbursements and an injunction against University of
Memphis as a result of University of Memphis’s violation of Title IX, which resulted in an
unduly severe and unwarranted sanction which continues to injure Plaintiff’s reputation and
right to continue his education, an injunction should issue directing University of Memphis to:
(i) expunge Plaintiff’s disciplinary record;
(ii) remove any record of Plaintiff’s suspension from his education file;
(iii) permanently destroy any record of Jane Roe’s complaint; and
2. On the second count for violation of constitutional due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an
injunction directing the University of Memphis and Kenneth Anderson, Title IX Coordinator
to
(i)

expunge Plaintiff’s disciplinary record;

(ii)

remove any record of Plaintiff’s suspension from his education file; and

(iii)

(iii) permanently destroy any record of Jane Roe’s complaint;

3. On the third count for state law breach of contract, a judgment against University of Memphis
awarding Plaintiff damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including, without
limitation, damages to physical well-being, emotional and psychological damages, damages to
reputation, past and future economic losses, loss of educational opportunities, and loss of future
career prospects, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs and disbursements;
4. An award to the Plaintiff of such other and further relief as the Court deems just, equitable and
proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff herein demands a trial by jury of all triable issues in the present matter.

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 21 of 21

PageID 21

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, P.L.L.C.
A Professional Limited Liability Company

_/s/Curtis D. Johnson, Jr. _______________
CURTIS D. JOHNSON, JR. ( Bar No.015518)
Suite 1002, 1407 Union Avenue
Memphis, Tennessee 38104
Telephone: (901) 725-7520
Facsimile: (901) 725-7570
cjohnson@johnsonandjohnsonattys.com

_/s/Florence J. Johnson__________
FLORENCE M. JOHNSON
Suite 1002, 1407 Union Avenue
Memphis, Tennessee 38104
Telephone: (901)725-7520
Facsimile: (901)725-7570
fjohnson@johnsonandjohnsonattys.com

 Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1-1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID 22
CIVIL COVER SHEET

The 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the ?ling and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States 1n September 1974, IS required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the

IS 44 (Rev. 02/19)

purpose of 1nitiating the civil docket sheet.

(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXTPAGE OF THIS FORM)

 

I. PLAIN TIFFS
Ernest Suttles

County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

Shelby

 

(EXCEPT IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES)

(C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Curtis D. Johnson Jr. Suite 1002, 1407 Union Ave. Memphis,

Tennessee

NOTE:

Attorneys (If Known)

 

DEFENDAN TS
University of Memphis

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

Shelby

 

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

 

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an in One Box Only)

if 3 Federal Question

 

(For Diversity Cases Only)

CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an in One Box for Plainti?r

and One Box for Defendant)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 U.S. Government PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U. S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated 0r Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
I CONTRACT BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES I
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers? Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application CI 470 Racketeer In?uenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran?s Bene?ts 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395f1) 485 Telephone Consumer
160 Stockholders? Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 862 Black Lung (923) Protection Act
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management 863 (405(g)) 490 Cable/Sat TV
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 864 SSID Title XVI 850 Securities/Commodities/
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) Exchange
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 890 Other Statutory Actions
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 891 Agricultural Acts
I REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS 893 Environmental Matters
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 870 Taxes (US. Plaintiff CI 895 Freedom of Information
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) Act
230 Rent Lease Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate CI 871 IRS?Third Party 896 Arbitration
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 899 Administrative Procedure
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General Act/Review or Appeal of
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Agency Decision
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application 3 950 Constitutionality of
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus Other 465 Other Immigration State Statutes
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Con?nement

 

 

 

 

 

 

V. ORIGIN (Place an in One Box Only)

X1 Original El 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from El 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from El 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specz'?z) Transfer Direct File

 

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Cite the S. Civil Statute under which you are ?lin
Title 9 of the Education Amendments of 1

not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

 

 

Brief description of cause:
Denial of Due Process and Title 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, JURY DEMAND: Yes 
RELATED 
t' 
IF ANY 89 m) JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
08/05/2019 /s/Curtis D. Johnson, Jr.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1-1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID 23

44 Reverse (Rev. 02/19)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the ?lings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint ?led. The attorney ?ling a case should complete the form as follows:





(C)

II.



IV.

VI.

VII.



Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, ?rst, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an of?cial within a government agency, identify ?rst the agency and
then the of?cial, giving both name and title.

County of Residence. For each civil case ?led, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the ?rst listed plaintiff resides at the
time of ?ling. In US. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the ?rst listed defendant resides at the time of ?ling. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)

Attorneys. Enter the ?rm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an 
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.

United States plaintiff. Jurisdiction based on 28 USC. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and of?cers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its of?cers or agencies, place an in this box.

Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 USC. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the US. is a party, the US. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.

Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 USC. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

Nature of Suit. Place an in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

 

Origin. Place an in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.

Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 USC, Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the ?ling
date.

Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the ?ling date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 USC. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.

Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 USC.
Section 1407.

Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is ?led in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE
NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in
statue.

Cause of Action. Report the ciVil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: US. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an in this box if you are ?ling a class action under Rule 23, 
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

Related Cases. This section of the 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1-2 Filed 08/05/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID 24

A0 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Western District of Tennessee 

Ernest Suttles

 

Plainti?Ys)

V. Civil Action No.

University of Memphis

 



Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

University of Memphis

c/o General Legal Counsel
Melanie Murry

201 Administration 
Memhis, Tennessee 38152

TO: (Defendant?s name and address)

A lawsuit has been ?led against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an of?cer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
whose name and address are: .

Curtis D. Johnson, Jr.

Johnson and Johnson PLLC
Suite 1002, 1407 Union Avenue
Memphis, Tennessee 38104

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must ?le your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

 

 

Signature of Clerk 0r Deputy Clerk

Case 2:19-cv-02502-JTF-cgc Document 1-2 Filed 08/05/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID 25

A0 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

 

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be ?led with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

 

was received by me on (date)

 

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

 

on (date) or

 

 

I left the summons at the individual?s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

 

a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

 

on (date) and mailed a copy to the individual?s last known address; or

 

I served the summons on (name of individual) who is

 

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name oforganization)

 

 

 

 

on (date) or
I returned the summons unexecuted because or
I: Other (specify):
My fees are for travel and for services, for a total of 0_oo

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

 

 

Server ?s signature

 

Printed name and title

 

Server is address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: