UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

LINDA MARTINSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

v Case No. 

 

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 

MICHIGAN, a constitutional body corporate; 

CAROL LOVELAND-CHERRY, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

individually and in her official capacity, 

JUDITH LYNCH-SAUER, individually 

and in her official capacity, and 

BONNIE HAGERTY, individually and 

in her official capacity, 

 

 Defendants. 

________________________________________/ 

SCHWARTZ LAW FIRM, P.C. 

By: Jay A. Schwartz (P45268) 

Miles L. Uhlar (P65008) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

37887 West Twelve Mile Road, Suite A 

Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331 

(248) 553-9400 

 

________________________________________/ 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Linda Martinson, by and through her attorney, Schwartz Law 

Firm, P.C., and for her Complaint against Defendant, Regents of the University of Michigan, and 

Defendants, Carol Loveland-Cherry, Judith Lynch-Sauer, and Bonnie Hagerty, in their individual 

and official capacities, states: 

 

1

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.1 Page 1 of 21
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action authorized and instituted pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, secondary 

to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution. 

2. Plaintiff, Linda Martinson, is a resident of Michigan, and has resided within the 

Eastern District of Michigan at all times relevant to this proceeding. 

3. Defendant, Regents of the University of Michigan (hereafter “Defendant University 

of Michigan”), is a constitutional body corporate operating within Washtenaw County, Michigan, 

within the Eastern District of Michigan. 

4. Defendant, Carol Loveland-Cherry (hereafter “Defendant Loveland-Cherry”), 

is/was at all time relevant to this complaint Executive Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at 

The University of Michigan School of Nursing. Defendant Loveland-Cherry is also a Professor

at The University of Michigan School of Nursing. 

5. Defendant, Judith Lynch-Sauer (hereafter “Defendant Lynch-Sauer”), is/was at all 

times relevant to this complaint Director for the Office of Student Affairs at The University of 

Michigan School of Nursing. Defendant Lynch-Sauer is also a Clinical Assistant Professor at 

The University of Michigan School of Nursing. 

6. Defendant, Bonnie Hagerty (hereafter “Defendant Hagerty”), is/was at all times

relevant to this complaint Director for Undergraduate Programs at The University of Michigan 

School of Nursing. Defendant Hagerty is also an Associate Professor at The University of

Michigan School of Nursing. 

2

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.2 Page 2 of 21
7. The events giving rise to this cause of action occurred in Washtenaw County, 

Michigan, which is within the Eastern District of Michigan. 

8. Jurisdiction is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 29 USC § 1441 (federal 

question jurisdiction). 

9. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 USC § 1391. 

COMMON ALLEGATIONS/BACKGROUND FACTS

10. Plaintiff was a student at The University of Michigan School of Nursing from 

August of 2007 through her expulsion in November of 2007. 

11. During this time period, Plaintiff was a student in the Second Career BSN 

Program, a prestigious and accelerated Second Career Nursing Program. 

12. Plaintiff came to the prestigious BSN program with an excellent record of 

academic achievement throughout her educational career. 

13. In September of 2007, Plaintiff began to have clinical performance problems in a

class known as N221. 

14. A variety of factors contributed to these performance problems, including the 

stress caused by the unexpected diagnosis of medical problems with Plaintiff’s daughter. 

15. Plaintiff first advised Diane Bohn, the clinical instructor of N221, of her

daughter’s medical problems on September 17, 2007. Ms. Bohn suggested that Plaintiff leave 

the program because it was going to be accelerated and stressful. 

16. From September 17, 2007 forward, Plaintiff’s relationship with Diane Bohn 

deteriorated rapidly. 

3

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.3 Page 3 of 21
17. After September 17, 2007, Diane Bohn began documenting perceived problems

with Plaintiff’s clinical performance. 

18. At different times after September 17, 2007, Diane Bohn involved Defendants 

Hagerty, Lynch-Sauer, and Loveland-Cherry with her ongoing issues with Plaintiff in N221. 

Bohn e-mailed Defendant Hagerty on or about September 24, 2007, and met with her on or about 

October 5, 2007. Plaintiff first met with Lynch-Sauer on October 2, 2007, to discuss problems in 

N221 clinical. Diane Bohn met with Defendant Lynch-Sauer regarding Plaintiff on or about 

October 9, 2007; Defendants Lynch-Sauer and Hagerty also met with Plaintiff on that date. On 

or about October 12, 2007, Bohn and Defendants Lynch-Sauer and Hagerty met with Plaintiff. 

Defendants offered criticism to Plaintiff during this meeting to which Plaintiff was not receptive.

Upon information and belief, from at least this date forward, Defendants Lynch-Sauer and 

Hagerty had developed a strong, personal dislike for Plaintiff, wanted to expel her, and were 

looking for a justification for the same. 

19. On or about October 16, 2007 Diane Bohn filed a report with Defendant 

Loveland-Cherry detailing supposed honor code violations by Plaintiff. 

 20. On or about October 17, 2007, Plaintiff was asked to attend another meeting with

Defendant Hagerty and Defendant Loveland-Cherry. Defendants again offered criticism to 

Plaintiff, which Plaintiff was unreceptive to. Defendant Loveland-Cherry called The University of 

Michigan Department of Public Safety (DPS) to the meeting. At Defendant Loveland-Cherry’s

request, DPS issued Plaintiff a no-trespass citation advising her she could be arrested if she entered

“any University owned or leased buildings or portions thereof”. 

4

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.4 Page 4 of 21
21. At the October 17, 2007 meeting, Defendant Loveland-Cherry also gave Plaintiff 

a letter advising her that the School of Nursing was acting on reports of a possible violation of 

the Student Code of Academic and Professional Conduct, AKA student honor code. It did not 

specify who had made the complaint, what the charges were, or what provision of the code was 

involved. 

22. Upon information and belief, from at least this date forward, Defendant LovelandCherry had developed a strong personal dislike for Plaintiff, wanted to expel Plaintiff, and was 

looking for justification to do the same. 

23. On or about October 18, 2007, Defendant Loveland-Cherry submitted a request to 

Dr. E. Royster Harper, Vice-President for Student Affairs, requesting that Linda Martinson be

immediately removed from the School of Nursing. This request was apparently accompanied by 

a seven-page chronology of various incidents that had supposedly disrupted the educational 

environment and “caused faculty, students, and staff to feel threatened and fear for their personal 

safety”. Defendant Loveland-Cherry’s request also asked that Plaintiff be immediately removed 

for mental health reasons. 

24. Upon information and belief, the claimed incidents which caused individuals to 

feel “threatened” were vague descriptions of Plaintiff coming too close to them physically while 

speaking, not following social cues to end conversations at appropriate times, and speaking 

loudly in public places – there were never any genuine complaints about Plaintiff threatening

anyone with bodily harm, or anyone ever saying they thought Plaintiff was going to strike them. 

25. The complaints and incidents cited by Defendant Loveland-Cherry in her request 

to have Plaintiff immediately removed from the School of Nursing – particularly as they related 

5

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.5 Page 5 of 21
to “fear for personal safety” – were exaggerated, overblown, and motivated by personal 

animosity held by Defendants towards Plaintiff, and their desire to expel her. 

26. Vice President Harper referred Defendant Loveland-Cherry’s request for Plaintiff’s

immediate removal to the Office of Student Conflict Resolution for review and evaluation based 

on case precedent for suspension for behavioral misconduct and best practice policy 

recommendations in the field. 

27. The Office of Student Conflict Resolution (OSCR) Director, Defendant Jennifer 

Schrage, reviewed Defendant Loveland-Cherry’s request for immediate/emergency suspension, 

and on October 19, 2007 issued a written memorandum indicating their view that there was no 

basis for immediate removal (there was no threat of immediate danger). 

28. On October 22, 2007, Vice President Harper issued a written memorandum to 

Defendant Loveland-Cherry. This memorandum agreed with Dean of Student’s and OSCR’s

view that there was no basis for immediate removal (there was no threat of immediate danger). 

Vice President Harper further advised she had had Dean of Students Susan Eklund review the 

Mental Health component of Defendant Loveland-Cherry’s request, and she found there was no 

basis for removal on such grounds. Dean Eklund recommended that Plaintiff’s behavior 

continue to be monitored, and that she be referred to CAPS for counseling. 

29. Despite Vice President Harper’s, Dean Eklund’s, and OSCR’s recommendations, 

Defendants remained intent on expelling Plaintiff. They refused/failed to ask DPS to lift the no 

trespass warning barring Plaintiff from entry into campus buildings. 

30. On or about October 30, 2007, Defendant Loveland-Cherry scheduled a 

“preliminary inquiry hearing” regarding Diane Bohn’s report regarding supposed honor code

6

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.6 Page 6 of 21
violations for Plaintiff. Defendant Loveland-Cherry set this “preliminary inquiry” for November 5, 

2007 – the week of Plaintiff’s scheduled final examinations/assignments. 

31. Per the University of Michigan Undergraduate handbook, this “preliminary 

inquiry” is not the hearing at which it is determined if a code violation has occurred and what the 

outcome should be, rather it is an informal inquiry designed to see if a resolution can be reached. 

If the complaint is not resolved at the preliminary inquiry, a Committee on Academic 

Admissions and Scholastic Standing (CAASS) Hearing Panel is then scheduled to determine if a 

code infraction occurred, and if so, what sanctions were appropriate. 

32. The initial inquiry was held on November 5, 2007. Plaintiff could not attend. No 

conclusions made at the initial inquiry were immediately released. On the morning of 

November 5, 2007, immediately after the initial inquiry, the date and time for the Final Hearing 

was scheduled. All other participants were notified that day, but no attempt was made to provide 

notice to Plaintiff.

33. On November 5, 2007, Defendant Hagerty began attempting to solicit written 

complaints about Plaintiff from students who had not made them previously, in an effort to get 

Plaintiff expelled. 

34. On the evening of November 5, 2007, DPS advised Defendant Loveland-Cherry 

they did not view Plaintiff as an immediate threat or danger. 

35. On November 6, 2007, Defendant Loveland-Cherry spoke with Jennifer Schrage, 

director of the Office of Student Conflict Resolution regarding Plaintiff’s case. Defendant 

Loveland-Cherry admitted to Schrage that there was still no evidence of Plaintiff being an 

immediate danger. 

7

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.7 Page 7 of 21
36. On November 7, 2007, less than 24 hours after admitting to Schrage that Plaintiff 

was not an immediate danger, and within 48 hours of DPS advising her there was no immediate

danger, Defendant Loveland-Cherry issued a memorandum setting forth the findings of the 

preliminary inquiry on November 5th. 

37. The November 7th memorandum advised that the complaint against Plaintiff 

would have to proceed to a CAASS Hearing Panel, a sub-committee of the CAASS. 

38. The November 7th memorandum vaguely asserted that “the specific charge” to be

addressed by the CAASS panel was “behavior in N221 with clinical staff, faculty, and student 

peers that is not consistent with the American Nursing Association Code of Ethics”. 

39. Contrary to what DPS had advised her on November 5th, and contrary to what she 

had admitted to Schrage on November 6th, the November 7th memorandum indicated that the 

CAASS hearing had to take place on an emergency basis, preferably by the end of the current 

week. 

40. The November 7th memorandum further advised that the CAASS hearing panel 

would occur at 1:00 p.m. on November 9, 2007 (within 48 hours). 

41. Defendant Loveland-Cherry approached Plaintiff in the School of Nursing on the

afternoon of November 7, 2007 and attempted to hand Plaintiff some type of packet. Because 

Defendant Loveland-Cherry had already had her served with a trespass warning, and because she 

was scared of Defendant Loveland-Cherry (whom she thought might have her arrested), Plaintiff 

would not accept the packet. At no time during this encounter in the hallway on November 7th

did Defendant Loveland-Cherry attempt to tell Plaintiff what the packet was, or that a CAASS 

hearing had been scheduled for November 9th. 

8

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.8 Page 8 of 21
42. At 1:48 p.m. on November 7, 2007, Defendant Loveland-Cherry sent Plaintiff an 

e-mail with the subject title “Delivery of Packet of Information”. The e-mail contained an 

unnamed attachment. The body of the e-mail, when opened, stated nothing about the CAASS 

hearing on November 9, 2007. The unnamed attachment was the November 7th memorandum. 

43. Plaintiff did not receive notice of the November 9, 2007 CAASS hearing before it 

occurred. 

44. At some point on or around November 7, 2007, Defendant Lynch-Sauer sent 

e-mails to several of Plaintiff’s classmates requesting that they make complaint against Plaintiff, 

which could be used at the November 9, 2007 hearing. 

45. These solicitations by Defendant Lynch-Sauer went so far as to recommend dates 

and incidents she desired Plaintiff’s classmates to complain about. 

46. Several of Plaintiff’s classmates complied with Defendant Lynch-Sauer’s 

solicitation, and composed e-mails between November 7th and 9th, 2007, regarding various

incidents of supposed “danger” and “threatening situations” that had occurred weeks to months

before (which they had not formally complained about contemporaneous to their supposed 

occurrence).

47. The CAASS hearing occurred on November 9, 2007. Plaintiff had no idea it was 

occurring, and did not attend. 

48. At the CAASS hearing, Diane Bohn – the individual who had actually made the

complaint at issue, and who had more contact with Plaintiff than any other witness present –

appeared and testified. Ms. Bohn did not recommend Plaintiff’s expulsion. Instead, she 

9

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.9 Page 9 of 21
concluded that Plaintiff was not happy and healthy, and recommended that her progression be 

restricted until she addressed some personal issues. 

49. Defendants Lynch-Sauer and Hagerty appeared and testified at the hearing. 

Defendant Lynch-Sauer presented the complaints she had solicited. Both Defendants LynchSauer and Hagerty recommended Plaintiff’s permanent expulsion, Hagerty saying, “I think this is 

an immediate, serious, safety issue...” 

50. The CAASS committee followed the recommendation of Defendants Hagerty and

Lynch-Sauer, and on November 9, 2007 recommended Plaintiff’s permanent expulsion. 

51. On November 13, 2007, Defendants (via the Department of Public Safety) issued 

Plaintiff a second trespass warning advising she could be arrested if she entered any University 

owned building. 

52. On November 16, 2007, the whole of CAASS approved the recommendation, and 

Plaintiff was immediately and permanently expelled from the School of Nursing. 

53. Plaintiff timely filed an internal administrative appeal to her expulsion pursuant to 

the University of Michigan’s internal policies. Specifically, Plaintiff argued it was unreasonable 

and unfair that the CAASS hearing was scheduled 4 days after the initial inquiry, and that 

Defendants withheld notice and did not even attempt to give her notice of the CAASS hearing 

until 48 hours before it was set to begin, and collected “evidence” after attempted notice and did

not disclose it prior to the hearing. 

54. Plaintiff’s internal appeal came up before a 5 member panel (3 School of Nursing 

professors and 2 School of Nursing students) on August 14, 2008. 

10

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.10 Page 10 of 21
55. Plaintiff won the appeal; the panel issued findings stating that the short 

turnaround between the November 5th initial inquiry and November 9th hearing did not afford 

Plaintiff reasonable time to prepare and engage counsel. The panel opined that at least 20 

business days should have been provided. The panel further opined that while it was appropriate 

for the School of Nursing to be concerned about safety, less drastic measures than expulsion 

(such as suspension) were appropriate in Plaintiff’s case. 

56. The appellate panel recommended that a new CAASS hearing panel be convened. 

57. The School of Nursing blatantly ignored all aspects of the appellate panel’s 

recommendations, and instead advised Plaintiff in writing on August 28, 2008 it was upholding 

her permanent expulsion. On the same day, the Department of Public Safety, issued a third

Trespass Warning barring Plaintiff from the entire campus for an indefinite period of time, and 

subjecting her to arrest on sight. 

58. Defendants’ actions have cause Plaintiff severe and permanent damages. 

COUNT I 

42 USC §1983 – FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

59. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the facts set forth in paragraphs 1-58 above. 

60. As a student at a public university, Plaintiff had a constitutionally protected 

fundamental right and interest in continuing her education at The University of Michigan School 

of Nursing. 

61. As a student at a public university, Plaintiff had a constitutionally protected 

property interest in continuing her education at The University of Michigan School of Nursing. 

11

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.11 Page 11 of 21
62. Plaintiff’s reputation and her opportunity to pursue future employment constitute 

a constitutionally protected liberty interest. 

63. Defendants’ expulsion of Plaintiff was arbitrary and capricious and was motivated 

by bad faith. 

64. There was no rational basis for Plaintiff’s expulsion. 

65. There was no rational basis for: 

• scheduling Plaintiff’s CAASS hearing 4 days after the initial inquiry; 

• attempting to give Plaintiff only 48 hours notice of the hearing; 

• stating that the hearing had to be conducted on an expedited basis when VP 

Harper, Dean Eklund, OSCR, and DPS had all concluded/recommended there 

was no immediate threat of danger; 

• issuing Plaintiff a no trespass citation barring her from University buildings, 

and maintaining it even after VP Harper’s review; 

• soliciting student complaints to try and create a false impression of an 

emergency to get an immediate expulsion; 

• deliberately inaccurately portraying incidents involving speaking too close to

another person, not following social cues to terminate conversations, and 

speaking loudly in public as dangerous situations potentially involving bodily 

harm; 

• ignoring the recommendations of the August 14, 2008 appellate panel; 

• issuing second trespass warning barring Plaintiff from entering any university 

buildings; or 

• issuing third trespass warning barring Plaintiff from entire campus. 

66. Defendants’ actions shock the conscience. 

12

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.12 Page 12 of 21
67. Defendants deprived Plaintiff of her constitutionally protected right to continue 

her education, thereby violating the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to 

the United States Constitution. 

68. Defendants Loveland-Cherry, Hagerty, and Lynch-Sauer, and other agents, 

representatives, and employees of Defendant University of Michigan, acting under color of state 

law and in concert with one another, by their conduct showed intentional, outrageous, and 

reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

69. Defendants Loveland-Cherry, Hagerty, and Lynch-Sauer, and other agents, 

representatives, and employees of Defendant University of Michigan, acting under color of state 

law and in concert with one another, acted out of vindictiveness and ill will towards Plaintiff.

70. The acts of Defendants Loveland-Cherry, Hagerty, and Lynch-Sauer, and other 

agents, representatives, and employees of Defendant University of Michigan, as described above 

represent official policy of Defendant University of Michigan and are attributable to Defendant 

University of Michigan.

71. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff had a clearly established right to due process 

of law which a reasonable public official would have known. 

72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered 

irreparable harm, injury, and damages, including but not limited to: monetary damages, loss of 

her nursing school education and nursing degree, time and resources, loss of career opportunities 

and earning capacity, mental and emotional distress, anxiety and mental anguish, humiliation and 

embarrassment, and loss of personal and professional reputation. 

13

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.13 Page 13 of 21
COUNT II 

42 USC §1983 – FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

73. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the facts set forth in paragraphs 1-72 above. 

74. As a student at a public university, Plaintiff had a constitutionally protected 

fundamental right and interest in continuing her education at The University of Michigan School 

of Nursing. 

75. As a student at a public university, Plaintiff had a constitutionally protected 

property interest in continuing her education at The University of Michigan School of Nursing. 

76. Plaintiff’s reputation and her opportunity to pursue future employment constitute 

a constitutionally protected liberty interest. 

77. Plaintiff was not afforded an unbiased, fair, careful, and deliberate review process 

either prior to or following her expulsion from the University of Michigan School of Nursing. 

78. The actions of Defendants Loveland-Cherry, Hagerty, Lynch-Sauer and other 

agents, representatives, and employees of Defendant University of Michigan, acting under color

of state law and in concert with one another, deprived Plaintiff of sufficient notice and an

opportunity to be heard. 

79. The acts of Defendants Loveland-Cherry, Hagerty, and Lynch-Sauer, and other 

agents, representatives, and employees of Defendant University of Michigan, as described above 

represent official policy of Defendant University of Michigan and are attributable to Defendant 

University of Michigan.

80. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff had a clearly established right to due process 

of law which a reasonable public official would have known. 

14

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.14 Page 14 of 21
81. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered 

irreparable harm, injury, and damages, including but not limited to: monetary damages, loss of 

her nursing school education and nursing degree, time and resources, loss of career opportunities 

and earning capacity, mental and emotional distress, anxiety and mental anguish, humiliation and 

embarrassment, and loss of personal and professional reputation. 

COUNT III 

MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION –SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

82. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the facts set forth in paragraphs 1-81 above. 

83. As a student at a public university, Plaintiff had a constitutionally protected 

fundamental right and interest, under the Michigan Constitution, in continuing her education at 

The University of Michigan School of Nursing. 

84. As a student at a public university, Plaintiff had a constitutionally protected 

property interest, under the Michigan Constitution in continuing her education at The University

of Michigan School of Nursing. 

85. Plaintiff’s reputation and her opportunity to pursue future employment constitute 

a constitutionally protected liberty interest under the Michigan Constitution. 

86. Defendants’ expulsion of Plaintiff was arbitrary and capricious and was motivated 

by bad faith. 

87. There was no rational basis for Plaintiff’s expulsion. 

88. There was no rational basis for: 

• scheduling Plaintiff’s CAASS hearing 4 days after the initial inquiry; 

• attempting to give Plaintiff only 48 hours notice of the hearing; 

15

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.15 Page 15 of 21
• stating that the hearing had to be conducted on an expedited basis when VP 

Harper, Dean Eklund, OSCR, & DPS had all concluded/recommended there 

was no immediate threat of danger; 

• issuing Plaintiff a no trespass citation barring her from University buildings, 

and maintaining it even after VP Harper’s review; 

• soliciting student complaints to try and create a false impression of an 

emergency to get an immediate expulsion; 

• deliberately inaccurately portraying incidents involving speaking too close to

another person, not following social cues to terminate conversations, and 

speaking loudly in public as dangerous situations potentially involving bodily 

harm; 

• ignoring the recommendations of the August 14, 2008 appellate panel; 

• issuing second trespass warning barring Plaintiff from entering any university 

buildings; or 

• issuing third trespass warning barring Plaintiff from entire campus. 

89. Defendants’ actions shock the conscience. 

90. Defendants deprived Plaintiff of her constitutionally protected right to continue 

her education, thereby violating the due process requirements of the Michigan Constitution. 

91. Defendants Loveland-Cherry, Hagerty, and Lynch-Sauer, and other agents, 

representatives, and employees of Defendant University of Michigan, acting under color of state 

law and in concert with one another, by their conduct showed intentional, outrageous, and 

reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

92. Defendants Loveland-Cherry, Hagerty, and Lynch-Sauer, and other agents, 

representatives, and employees of Defendant University of Michigan, acting under color of state 

law and in concert with one another, acted out of vindictiveness and ill will towards Plaintiff.

16

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.16 Page 16 of 21
93. The acts of Defendants Loveland-Cherry, Hagerty, and Lynch-Sauer, and other 

agents, representatives, and employees of Defendant University of Michigan, as described above 

represent official policy of Defendant University of Michigan and are attributable to Defendant 

University of Michigan.

94. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff had a clearly established right to due process 

of law which a reasonable public official would have known. 

95. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered 

irreparable harm, injury, and damages, including but not limited to: monetary damages, loss of 

her nursing school education and nursing degree, time and resources, loss of career opportunities 

and earning capacity, mental and emotional distress, anxiety and mental anguish, humiliation and 

embarrassment, and loss of personal and professional reputation. 

COUNT IV 

MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION – PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

96. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the facts set forth in paragraphs 1-95 above. 

97. As a student at a public university, Plaintiff had a constitutionally protected 

fundamental right and interest, under the Michigan Constitution, in continuing her education at 

The University of Michigan School of Nursing. 

98. As a student at a public university, Plaintiff had a constitutionally protected 

property interest, under the Michigan Constitution, in continuing her education at The University

of Michigan School of Nursing. 

99. Plaintiff’s reputation and her opportunity to pursue future employment constitute 

a constitutionally protected liberty interest. 

17

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.17 Page 17 of 21
100. Plaintiff was not afforded an unbiased, fair, careful, and deliberate review process 

either prior to of following her expulsion from the University of Michigan School of Nursing. 

101. The actions of Defendants Loveland-Cherry, Hagerty, Lynch-Sauer and other 

agents, representatives, and employees of Defendant University of Michigan, acting under color

of state law and in concert with one another, deprived Plaintiff of sufficient notice and an

opportunity to be heard. 

102. The acts of Defendants Loveland-Cherry, Hagerty, and Lynch-Sauer, and other 

agents, representatives, and employees of Defendant University of Michigan, as described above 

represent official policy of Defendant University of Michigan and are attributable to Defendant 

University of Michigan.

103. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff had a clearly established right to due process 

of law which a reasonable public official would have known. 

104. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered 

irreparable harm, injury, and damages, including but not limited to: monetary damages, loss of 

her nursing school education and nursing degree, time and resources, loss of career opportunities 

and earning capacity, mental and emotional distress, anxiety and mental anguish, humiliation and 

embarrassment, and loss of personal and professional reputation. 

COUNT V 

DECLARATORY RELIEF

105. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the facts set forth in paragraphs 1-104 above. 

106. Plaintiff hereby requests declaratory judgment pursuant to FRCP 57 and 28 USC 

§ 2201. 

18

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.18 Page 18 of 21
107. Because Plaintiff’s expulsion was obtained without due process of law, it should 

be declared null and void. 

108. The Court should enter a declaratory judgment stating that Plaintiff’s expulsion is 

null and void, and was obtained without due process of law. 

COUNT VI

RESPONDENT SUPERIOR AND/OR AGENCY

109. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the facts set forth in paragraphs 1-108 above. 

110. Defendants Loveland-Cherry, Lynch-Sauer, and Hagerty, as well as all other 

individuals mentioned by name in this complaint (other than Plaintiff) were employees and/or 

agents of Defendant University of Michigan at all times relevant to this complaint. 

111. Defendant University of Michigan is liable for any wrongful, illegal, 

unconstitutional, and/or tortuous acts or statements of Defendants Loveland Cherry, LynchSauer, and Hagerty, as well as all other University of Michigan employees and/or agents. 

112. Defendants are jointly, severally, and/or alternatively liable to Plaintiff for all her 

injuries and/or damages. 

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered against Defendant University of Michigan, and 

Defendants Loveland-Cherry, Lynch-Sauer, and Hagerty, in their official capacity, as follows: 

LEGAL RELIEF

• Compensatory Damages in whatever amount she is found entitled; 

• Exemplary Damages in whatever amount she is found entitled; and 

• An award of interest, costs, and reasonable attorney fees. 

19

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.19 Page 19 of 21
DECLARATORY RELIEF

• Plaintiff’s expulsion should be declared null and void; 

• All trespass warnings should be declared null and void; and 

• Plaintiff’s transcript be wiped clean of a failing grade in N221. 

EQUITABLE RELIEF

• An order stating that at Plaintiff’s option, if at any time within 1 year of the entry of

judgment she desires to return to the University of Michigan School of Nursing, she

will be reinstated and placed in the position she would have been in but for Defendants’ 

wrongdoing;

• An injunction prohibiting Defendants from committing any further acts of wrongdoing;

and 

• Whatever other equitable relief appears appropriate at the time of final judgment. 

SCHWARTZ LAW FIRM, P.C. 

 By: s/ Jay A. Schwartz 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

37887 West Twelve Mile Road, Suite A 

Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331 

 (248) 553-9400 

jschwartz@schwartzlawfirmpc.com

Dated: September 9, 2009 (P45268) 

 

20

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.20 Page 20 of 21
PLAINTIFF’S JURY DEMAND

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Linda Martinson, by and through her attorney, Schwartz Law 

Firm, P.C., and hereby requests a trial by jury of the within cause. 

SCHWARTZ LAW FIRM, P.C. 

 By: s/ Jay A. Schwartz 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

37887 West Twelve Mile Road, Suite A 

Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331 

 (248) 553-9400 

jschwartz@schwartzlawfirmpc.com

Dated: September 9, 2008 (P45268) 

 

 

21

Case 2:09-cv-13552-PDB-MAR ECF No. 1 filed 09/09/09 PageID.21 Page 21 of 21