Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * ROCK FOR LIFE - UMBC, et al., * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * Civil No. JFM 08-0811 * FREEMAN A. HRABOWSKI, et al., * * * Defendants. ***** MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs Rock for Life-UMBC ("Rock for Life"), Olivia Ricker, and Miguel Mendez have filed suit against the University of Maryland, Baltimore County ("UMBC") and several UMBC officials alleging violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of a number of UMBC's former and current policies. Defendants contest Plaintiffs' ability to bring their claims due to issues of standing and mootness. Now pending is Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.1

There are two other pending motions in this case. First, Plaintiffs have moved to amend their complaint. At a preliminary injunction hearing on August 8, 2008, Defendants notified the Court that the parties had negotiated revisions to several of the UMBC policies challenged in Plaintiffs' original complaint, and that the revised policies would take effect for the 2008-2009 school year. (Pls.' Mem. Supp. Pls.' Mot. for Leave to File First Am. Ver. Compl. ("Pls.' Mem. Supp. Mot. to Amend") at 3.) Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction was then dismissed without prejudice as moot. (See Order, Sept. 22, 2008.) Subsequent to this hearing and in light of further discovery, Plaintiffs now seek to amend the complaint to add two more UMBC officials as defendants, to correct the facts as to the size of the signs in Plaintiffs' display, to incorporate UMBC's policy changes, and to limit their claims for relief in response to the policy changes. (See Am. Compl.) Plaintiffs initially sought injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief from all the challenged UMBC policies (Compl. 24) and continue to do so for the Sexual Harassment Policy, which was not revised. Plaintiffs have removed from the proposed amended complaint their prayer for injunctive relief from the other challenged UMBC policies. The proposed amended complaint indicates that Plaintiffs still seek declaratory relief as to the previous versions of the

1

The issues have been fully briefed and no hearing is deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2008). For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part. I. Facts For purposes of this motion, "[t]he factual allegations in Plaintiff[s'] complaint must be accepted as true and those facts must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff[s]." Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff Rock for Life is an unincorporated association and registered student organization at UMBC.2 (Am. Compl.

Download Rock for Life - UMBC v. Hrabowski, et al. - Memorandum.pdf

Maryland Law