This case has been updated in our Title IX Lawsuits Database.

Tanya Walton Pratt is the Chief United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. She has denied John Doe’s motion for injunctive relief to stay the University of Southern Indiana’s (USI’s) imminent suspension against him after a finding that Doe was responsible for sexual assault.

Chief Judge Pratt has not historically been friendly to accused-students-turned-plaintiffs; of the seven such lawsuits I am aware of that she has heard, only one resulted in a successful claim for the plaintiff (Marshall v. Indiana University et al). That was seven years ago. Her recent decision continues that overall trend.

When a judge determines whether injunctive relief is appropriate, (s)he considers several factors:

1. The likelihood the plaintiff’s lawsuit will succeed on the merits
2. The likelihood the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted. For example, if the harm incurred can be entirely repaired or “made whole” by a court awarding monetary damages to the plaintiff, then the harm is not irreparable.
3. The “balance of equities,” or an evaluation of the plaintiff’s interests as weighed against the burdens placed upon the defendant
4. Whether granting injunctive relief would be in the “public interest” (one of the more subjective factors).

The decision seems to beg for an appeal for reason that it would be hard to summarize better than Professor KC Johnson, who speaks to her…missteps…in evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits:

Seven days after the decision, the plaintiff has already appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. This is definitely a lawsuit to watch.