Onyiah v. St. Cloud State University and Board of Trustees et al

Filing 39

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting in part and denying in part 18 Motion to Dismiss/General, filed by Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, St. Cloud State University and Board of Trustees, Dale Buske, Melissa Hanszek-Brill, Peiyi Zhao, Ellyn Bartges, Daniel Gregory (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on October 11, 2017. (HAZ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
_____________________________________________________________________
LEONARD C. ONYIAH,

Civil No. 16-4111 (JRT/LIB)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY AND
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al,
Defendants.
________________________________________________________________________
Boris Parker, Jordan Anderson, PARKER & WENNER, 100 South Fifth
Street, 2100 Fifth Street Towers, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Kenechukwu
Okoli, LAW OFFICES OF K.C. OKOLI, P.C., 330 Seventh Avenue,
15th Floor, New York, NY 10001, for plaintiff.
Kathryn Fodness, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100, St Paul, MN 55101-2128, for defendants.
Based upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Leo I. Brisbois, and after an independent review of the files, records and proceedings in
the above-entitled matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

That based upon Plaintiff’s counsel’s representations on the record at the

July 24, 2017, Motion Hearing, all of Plaintiff’s claims under the Minnesota Human
Rights Act are DISMISSED without prejudice.
2.

That based upon Plaintiff’s counsel’s representations on the record at the

July 24, 2017, Motion Hearing, all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant St. Cloud State
University and Board of Trustees and Defendant Minnesota State Colleges and
Universities are DISMISSED with prejudice.

3.

That Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 18], is GRANTED IN

PART AND DENIED IN PART.
a.

Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 are DISMISSED with
prejudice;

b.

Plaintiff’s claims for monetary and punitive damages against all
named individual Defendants in their official capacities are
DISMISSED with prejudice;

c.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action of
First Amendment retaliation against Defendants Gregory, Buske, and
Hanszek-Brill is DENIED;

d.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action is
DENIED as to his claim that Defendants Buke, Hanszek-Brill, and
Gregory discriminated against him on the basis of his race or national
origin in December 2013, when they denied his request to use
Learning Assistants; but, in all other respects, Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss is GRANTED, as to Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action
which is DISMISSED without prejudice;

e.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action of
First Amendment Retaliation against Defendants Gregory and Buske
arising out of the denial of Plaintiff’s 2014/2015 participation in the
S2S Program during sabbatical or full return to participation in the
program following sabbatical is DENIED; but in all other respects,
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, as to Plaintiff’s Third

Cause of Action which is DISMISSED without prejudice;
f.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action of
First Amendment Retaliation against Defendants Gregory and Zhao
arising out of reclassification of students in Plaintiff’s Spring 2016
STAT 193 class is DENIED;

g.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action of
First Amendment Retaliation against Defendants Gregory and Zhao
arising out of adversely scheduling Plaintiff’s Spring 2016, class
schedule is DENIED; but in all other respects, Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss is GRANTED, as to Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action which
is DISMISSED without prejudice;

h.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action
against Defendant Gregory alleging discrimination against him on the
basis of his race or national origin arising out of scheduling Summer
2016 classes is DENIED;

i.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Seventh Cause of Action of
First Amendment Retaliation against Defendants Gregory, Zhao,
Buske, and Hanszek-Brill is DENIED;

j.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Cause of Action is
GRANTED, and the cause of action is therefore DISMISSED
without prejudice;

k.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Ninth Cause of Action is
GRANTED, and the cause of action is DISMISSED without

prejudice; and
l.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint on the
basis of Qualified Immunity is DENIED.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: October 10, 2017
at Minneapolis, Minnesota

s/John R. Tunheim
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
Chief Judge
United States District Court