(GTS/RFT), 2011 WL 2133661, at *9 (N.D.N.Y. May 25, 2011). Finally, Marshall argues that the Panel that heard his case was biased. Specifically, Marshall contends that the Panel was under pressure to aggressively prosecute campus sexual assault allegations, due to ongoing investigations against Indiana University-Bloomington for Title IX noncompliance. See Tyler Kingkade, Barnard College Joins List of 91 Colleges Under Title IX Investigations, HUFFINGTON POST, Jan. 7, 2015, www.huffingtonpost. com/2015/01/07/barnard-college-title-ix investigations_n_6432596.html. Further, both Ms. Hinton and Mr. Tomlinson, who led the investigation into the charges against Marshall, also improperly participated in the Panel’s deliberations. See Whitford v. Boglino, 63 F.3d 527, 534 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). In response, the Defendants note that
holding in addressing crime of obstructing an officer in serving or attempting to serve or execute a legal process or order that it is not enough that the accused should know that the person attempting to make the arrest is an arresting officer it must also appear that he knew that the officer was attempting to execute a lawful process or order holding that an inmate stated a claim under the due process clause when guards had placed her in a cell with a dangerous inmate holding that if delay in the prosecution of disciplinary charges substantially impaired the attorneys ability to defend against the charges  the constitution might compel a different analysis a delay coupled with actual prejudice could result in a due process violation  holding that due process forbids an officer who was substantially involved in the investigation of charges against an inmate from also serving on the adjudicating committee holding that the due process clause permits the state to treat a prison inmate who has a serious mental illness with antipsychotic drugs against his will if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmates medical interest