Matula began a series of remarkable actions in retaliation

15. Ms. Lopez initiated the grievance process provided by the rules established by Del Mar, claiming that Huegler had a racial bias against Hispanic students. After Van Wie declined to resolve the issue, the next step in the process was the filing of a formal grievance with Van Wie’s superior, Dean Anne Matula. Having obtained statements from Huegler, Van Wie, Benitez, and another faculty member, Matula rejected the grievance on February 27, 2003.

16. Ms. Lopez appealed Matula’s decision to the Student Grievance Review Committee. On March 12, 2003, the president of Del Mar at the time, Gustavo Valadez-Ortiz, directed that all materials relating to the grievance be forwarded to the Committee for review. Matula withheld some of the documents, including the statements provided by Mr. Benitez and another faculty member. Those statements supported some of Ms. Lopez’s complaints about Huegler and contained positive statements about Ms. Lopez.

17. The case came before the Committee on April 21, 2003. In an effort to justify the concealment of the statements, Matula asked Mr. Benitez to change the date of his statement. By changing the date, Matula wanted to make it appear that the statement was generated after the denial of the grievance. Thus, the statement would not be part of the record for the appeal. Benitez refused to forge the date on the statement. 18. At the hearing, Matula insisted under oath that she had received the statements long after the matter was out of her hands. The Committee found that Matula had given false testimony, that Matula had concealed documents, and that Ms. Lopez’s grievance was meritorious.

19. As provided by the rules of Del Mar, the Committee made a recommendation for remedial action to Vice President Jose Rivera. Rivera rejected the recommendation and findings of the Committee. In fact, Rivera attempted to whitewash the entire matter by dismissing the grievance on the ground that it was too vague, even though the rules of Del Mar do not authorize the dismissal of a grievance on that ground. Ms. Lopez appealed to then-President Jose Alaniz, who upheld Rivera’s decision.

20. Ms. Lopez then appealed the decision to the Board of Regents. Under the rules of Del Mar, the Board of Regents was obligated to make a written finding within forty-five days. The Board of Regents has a practice of delaying action on grievances of this sort, in the hope that the matter will become moot due to the graduation of the student. It has been over two years since Ms. Lopez appealed, and the Board of Regents has wholly failed to act, in violation of its own rules and in deliberate indifference to the existence of violations of the official policies of Del Mar and violations of the civil rights of members of the Del Mar community.

21. Despite the seriousness of these violations of due process, this was only the beginning. In fact, the most shocking conduct was yet to come. Dean Matula Begins a Campaign of Stalking and Harassment

22. Around the time of the Committee hearing, Matula began a series of remarkable actions in retaliation for (a) the assertion of constitutional rights by Ms. Lopez, (b) the truthful testimony and refusal to participate in a cover-up by Mr. Benitez, and (c) Mr. Benitez’s opposition to Matula’s candidacy for the position as president of Del Mar, which was soon to become open. Matula sought to embarrass and discredit Ms. Lopez and Mr. Benitez, to have Mr. Benitez fired, and to obtain revenge against Mr. Benitez and Ms. Lopez.