Huntsinger et al v. Idaho State University et al

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Defendants Idaho State University, Linda J. Alexander, Dr. Robert J. Fisher, and Dr. David Rogers' s Motion to Dismiss 11 is Granted in part and Denied in part. As stated this decision, the Court will dismiss Id aho State University as a defendant, but will allow the claims against the individual defendants to survive in both their official and individual capacities. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

KIARRA HUNTSINGER and KRISTIN
EVANS,

Case No. 4:14-cv-00237-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
V.
IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY; LINDA
J. ALEXANDER; DR. ROBERT J.
FISHER, Department of Mathematics
Chair; and DR. DAVID ROGERS,
Associate Dean of the College of Science
& Engineering at Idaho State
University,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Defendants Idaho State University, Linda J. Alexander, Dr.
Robert J. Fisher, and Dr. David Rogers’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 11). For the reasons set
forth below, the Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part. Specifically, the
Court will dismiss Idaho State University as a defendant, but will allow the claims

against the individual defendants to survive in both their official and individual
capacities.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Kristin Evans1 alleges that Defendants Idaho State University, Linda J.
Alexander, Dr. Robert J. Fisher, and Dr. David Rogers violated her due process rights by
giving her a failing grade and labeling her a “cheater” before allowing her to properly
respond to an accusation of academic dishonesty. At the time of her filing the complaint,
Evans also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. In a decision granting Evans’
motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court held that Evans was likely to succeed on
the merits of her due process claim, and she would suffer irreparable harm if an
injunction did not issue. Specifically, the Court found that: (1) Evans had a property
interest in her credits and course work at the University, as well as a liberty interest in
maintaining her good name, reputation, honor and integrity; (2) such interests could not
be deprived without due process; and (3) Defendants failed to provide her with the
process she was due when they gave her a failing grade in Math 1153-02; Introduction to
Statistics (21851) (a required course) without following the University’s own policies
and procedures. Temporary Restraining Order, p. 2, Dkt. 30
To temporarily remedy the alleged due process violation, the Court ordered
Defendants to (1) exonerate Evans of all charges of academic dishonesty and restore her

1

lawsuit.

Plaintiff Kiarra Huntsinger settled with Defendants, and she has been dismissed from the

academic record to reflect the grade she held in the Math class before she took the final
exam, (2) remove all record of academic dishonesty from her file, and (3) refrain from
taking any punitive action against her based on the cheating allegations unless, after
providing adequate due process, the University deemed such punitive action to be
necessary. Id.
In addition, the Court directed the parties to provide the Court with a process that
would protect Evans’ due process rights. After some wrangling between the parties about
this process, the Court eventually adopted the process proposed by Defendants.
Memorandum Decision and Order dated October 15, 2014, p. 3, Dkt. 31. The process
adopted by the Court entitles Evans to appeal her Math instructor’s recommendation that
Evans receive a failing grade for cheating on her final exam to Dean Richard Brey, Dean
of the College of Science and Engineering at ISU. Id. at 4. At the appeal hearing, Evans
is allowed to have legal counsel present. Id. If Evans is not exonerated at the hearing, she
may appeal Dean Brey’s written decision to the Academic Dishonesty Board, which shall
consist of six voting members. At this hearing, Evans is allowed to have counsel present,
call witnesses, and question any witness. Id. at 6.
The litigation thus far has been focused on providing Evans adequate due process.
But Defendants have also filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which is now
pending before the Court. Defendants argue that the Complaint should be dismissed
because (1) Evans failed to properly serve the Defendants, (2) Evans failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies, and (3) Evans’ claims against Defendants are barred by the
Eleventh Amendment.

ANALYSIS
1.

Inadequate Service
Defendants concede that Evans cured improper service by serving the Office of the

Attorney General on June 19, 2014, so that issue is moot.
2. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
Defendants argue that Evans failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, and
therefore her claim should be dismissed. But the very nature of a due process claim
implies that exhaustion would be futile – Evans brought this lawsuit because her
administrative remedies allegedly failed her.
That said, this issue is moot. If the Court were to dismiss this lawsuit and order
Evans to exhaust her administrative remedies, Evans would have to appeal the
University’s adverse decision to the dean of Evan’s college, who is Dean Brey. The
injunctive relief that the Court has ordered provides that Evans be granted a formal
hearing before Dean Brey. Memorandum Decision and Order dated October 15, 2014, at
5, Dkt. 31. She may then appeal Dean Brey’s decision to the Academic Dishonesty
Board. Id. In other words, the Court has ordered Evans to exhaust her administrative
remedies with a key difference being that her academic record reflects the grade she held
in the Math class before taking the final exam. It would therefore accomplish little to
dismiss the lawsuit and require Evans to do what she is presumably already doing.
3. Eleventh Amendment Immunity
Evans concedes that her claims against the University, as official arm of the state,
are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Her claims against the University are therefore

dismissed. The Court, however, finds that Evans’s claims against the University
professors and officials are based on an ongoing violation of her federal rights, and are
therefore not banned by the Eleventh Amendment.
Claims under § 1983 are limited by the scope of the Eleventh Amendment.
“States or governmental entities that are considered ‘arms of the State’ for Eleventh
Amendment purposes” are not “persons” under § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989). And a suit against a state official in his official capacity
is no different from a suit against the state itself. Id. at 71. In other words, state officials
sued in their official capacities are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.
However, there is one exception to this general rule: When sued for prospective
injunctive relief, a state official in his official capacity is considered a “person” for §
1983 purposes. Id. at 71. In what has become known as part of the Ex parte Young
doctrine, a suit for prospective injunctive relief provides a narrow, but well-established,
exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).
Here, the relief Evans seeks is prospective. She asks the Court to order Defendants
to afford her due process before deciding whether she should receive a failing grade
based on allegations of cheating. In addition, she seeks the reinstatement of her academic
record, without any compensation, to the point it was before Defendants allegedly
violated her constitutional rights. The goal of injunctive relief requiring Defendants to
afford Evans due process and to reinstate her academic record is not compensatory; rather
it is to compel the state officials to cease their actions in violations of federal law and to
comply with constitutional requirements. Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab., 131 F.3d

836, 839 (9th Cir. 1997). Rein
9
1
nstatement of Evan’s ac
o
cademic rec
cord simply prevents t
y
the
ongoing and prospe
g
ective viola
ation of her rights. “Th while r
hus,
reinstatemen would re
nt
elate
to the pa violation it would not amount to relief so
ast
n,
n
t
olely for the past violat
e
tion.” Id. at 841
t
(emphas in origin
sis
nal).
Accordingly the Court will allow the claims against the University officials to
A
y,
y
o
proceed against the in both their officia and indivi
em
t
al
idual capac
cities.
ORDER
O
T
ERED that Defendant Idaho Sta University, Linda J Alexande
t
ts
ate
J.
er,
IT IS ORDE
Dr. Robert J. Fisher and Dr. David Rogers’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 11) is GRANT
r,
D
n
TED
in part and DENIE in part As stated this decisio the Cour will dism Idaho S
a
ED
t.
on,
rt
miss
State
Universi as a defe
ity
endant, but will allow the claims a
against the individual defendants to
survive in both thei official an individu capacitie
i
ir
nd
ual
es.

DAT
ember 15, 2014
TED: Dece

__________
__________
_____
___
B. L
Lynn Winm
mill
Chief Judge
ited
District Cou
urt
Uni States D