Schaeffer v. Northern Virginia Community College
Filing
46
MEMORANDUM OPINION in re 29 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 05/12/2015. (c/s to Plaintiff)(jlan)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
TODD SCHAEFFER
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
NORTHERN VIRGINIA COMMUNITY
COLLEGE,
Defendant.
M E M O R A N D U M
1:14cv1128 (JCC/IDD)
O P I N I O N
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Northern
Virginia Community College’s (“NVCC” or “Defendant”) Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Subject Matter
Jurisdiction.
[Dkt. 29.]
For the following reasons, the Court
will grant the motion.
I. Background
Todd Schaeffer (“Schaeffer” or “Plaintiff”) is a
former student at NVCC who took several courses from 2006 to
2011.
(Def.’s Mem. in Supp. [Dkt. 153-1] at 2.)
Beginning in
2007, Schaeffer submitted grade appeals for seven of those
courses.
(Id.; see also Compl. [Dkt. 1], Ex. 1, at 17-24.)
Pursuant to NVCC’s grade appeal policy, he appealed to his
1
professors, the dean, provost, and the president of NVCC.
(Id.;
see also Compl., Ex. 1, at 24-30.)
Schaeffer’s complaint contains a litany of
allegations.
First, he alleges that “[a]ppeals, complaints, and
grievances processes did not always follow policy manual but
discretion of faculty,” and that his “records were altered and
not corrected.”
(Compl. at 1.)
He also alleges that
“modifications” to NVCC’s computer resources rendered him
“unable to perform the functions necessary for timely completion
of courses.”
(Id.)
wrongfully denied.”
“Requests for help and extension were
(Id.)
Additionally, Schaeffer alleges that
a grievance panel was not appointed to hear “grievable matter”
related to violations.
(Id.)
As a remedy, Schaeffer seeks $1,9450.00 as
reimbursement for thirteen credit hours, $400.00 in legal
expenses, and $350.00 for administrative costs.
(Id.)
“Also,
[NVCC] is to provide an official transcript reflecting accurate
number of completed credits, correct grade point average (GPA),
Bookkeeping and Contract Management (Cum Laude) Certificates
with correct graduation dates, and Dean’s List standing Spring,
Summer, and Fall of 2009.”
(Id.)
It is unclear under what legal theory Schaeffer is
asserting in his complaint.
It appears from the complaint that
he is bringing suit under 34 C.F.R. § 21.10 and 34 C.F.R. §
2
33.2.
(Id. at 1.)
NVCC has moved to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim on which
relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).
(Def.’s Mem. in Supp.at 1.)
Having been
fully briefed and argued, this motion is ripe for disposition.
II. Legal Standard
A. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction
“It is a principle of first importance that the
federal courts are tribunals of limited subject matter
jurisdiction.”
13 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice & Procedure § 3522.
“[S]ubject matter
jurisdiction relates to a federal court’s power to hear a case,
and that power is generally conferred by the basic statutory
grants of subject matter jurisdiction, such as 28 U.S.C. § 1331
or 28 U.S.C. § 1332.”
Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood,
Inc., 669 F.3d 448, 453 (4th Cir. 2012).
Section 1331, known as
federal question jurisdiction, empowers a federal district court
to hear “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws,
or treaties of the United States.”
28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Section
1332, known as diversity jurisdiction, grants a federal district
court jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of
3
interest and costs, and is between citizens of different
states[.]”
28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The burden is on the party
invoking the court’s jurisdiction (typically the plaintiff) to
establish subject matter jurisdiction.
Allen v. College of
William & Mary, 245 F. Supp. 2d 777, 782 (E.D. Va. 2003).
Dismissal is the only remedy when a federal court finds subject
matter jurisdiction lacking.
Matthews v. Fairfax Trucking,
Inc., No. 1:14cv1219-GBL-IDD, 2015 WL 1906073, at *2 (E.D. Va.
Apr. 15, 2015) (citing cases).
A defendant may challenge subject matter jurisdiction
through a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1).
“[A] defendant may present a facial attack on upon
the complaint where the complaint fails to allege facts upon
which subject matter jurisdiction may be based.”
Kerns v.
United States, 585 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2009) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
In such a case, the court
assumes the truth of all facts alleged by the plaintiff.
Id.
Alternatively, a defendant may contend that “the
jurisdictional allegations are not true.”
internal quotation marks omitted).
Id. (citation and
“In that situation, the
presumption of truthfulness normally accorded a complaint’s
allegations does not apply, and the district court is entitled
to decide disputed issues of fact with respect to subject matter
jurisdiction.”
Id.
Thus, a district court may go beyond the
4
allegations of the complaint and hold an evidentiary hearing to
determine if there are facts to support the jurisdictional
allegations.
Id.
B. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
In contrast to a 12(b)(1) motion, which addresses
whether a plaintiff has a right to be in federal district court
at all, a 12(b)(6) motion addresses whether the plaintiff has
stated a cognizable claim, or, in other words, that a complaint
is sufficient in that it details a legal cause of action.
Holloway, 669 F.3d at 453.
The Supreme Court has stated that in
order “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a [c]omplaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
“A claim has facial
plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.”
Id.
The issue in resolving such a
motion is not whether the non-movant will ultimately prevail,
but whether the non-movant is entitled to offer evidence to
support his or her claims.
“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible
claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience
5
and common sense.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted).
To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff’s complaint must
demand more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmedme accusation.”
555.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at
Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not
sufficient.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Hence, a pleading that
offers only “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do.”
at 557.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S.
Nor will a complaint that tenders mere “naked
assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.”
Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557.
Moreover, the plaintiff does not have to show a
likelihood of success on the merits.
Rather, the complaint must
merely allege – directly or indirectly – each element of a
“viable legal theory.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562-63.
III. Analysis
The Court first turns to whether it has jurisdiction
to hear this case.
This case is properly viewed as a facial
attack on subject matter jurisdiction, as NVCC is alleging that
there are no facts present that bring this action within the
Court’s jurisdiction.
There is no diversity jurisdiction here.
Both
Schaeffer and NVCC are citizens of Virginia, and the amount in
controversy is well short of the $75,000.00 threshold.
6
The only
way this matter could be in federal court is if the cause of
action is grounded in federal law.
Schaeffer points to 34
C.F.R. § 21.10 and 34 C.R.F § 33.2 as the bases for this Court’s
jurisdiction.
Neither are sufficient to vest this Court with
jurisdiction.
The first regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 21.10, implements
the Equal Access to Justice Act at the Department of Education.
The Equal Access to Justice Act provides for the prevailing
party in an action against the United States to collect
attorney’s fees and costs.
28 U.S.C. § 2412.
This includes
court proceedings of judicial review of agency action.
Id.
The
regulation cited by Schaeffer details which Department of
Justice adversary adjudications fall within the ambit of the
Equal Access to Justice Act.
34 C.F.R. § 21.10.
Since the
regulation does not supply a cause of action but rather details
when a prevailing party may recover costs, it does not meet the
requirement that the cause of action “arise from” federal law.
Thus, the regulation does not supply a source of jurisdiction
under federal question jurisdiction. 1
Likewise, 34 C.F.R. § 33.2 does not provide a source
of jurisdiction for this Court.
That regulation is a list of
definitions for the regulatory scheme implementing the Program
1
As NVCC notes, the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education did
not adjudicate Schaeffer’s grade appeal. (Def.’s Mem. in Supp. at 7-8.)
Thus, even if this regulation could support this Court’s jurisdiction, there
are no facts in this case that implicate 34 C.F.R. § 21.10.
7
Fraud Civil Remedies Act at the Department of Education.
The
Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act imposes civil penalties and
assessments on anyone who knowingly submits a false claim or
statement to a federal agency.
31 U.S.C. § 3802.
Because this
regulation is part of the administrative scheme developed by the
Department of Education to root out fraud in its programs, it
does not implicate a federal court’s jurisdiction.
Even if the complaint could be construed to properly
assert a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, the result would
still be the same.
Schaeffer has failed to allege a prima facie
case under any theory of law.
The facts alleged do not describe
any specific legal misconduct by NVCC.
Rather, the complaint
merely details his disagreement with NVCC about his academic
performance and carefully details all of the administrative
channels he pursued in pursuit of a grade change.
Dissatisfaction with grades, while disappointing, does not make
a federal lawsuit.
See Regents of Univ. of Mich. V. Ewing, 474
U.S. 214, 226 (1985) (“If a federal court is not the appropriate
forum in which to review the multitude of personnel decisions
that are made daily by public agencies, far less is it suited to
evaluate the substance of the multitude of academic decisions
that are made daily by faculty members of public educational
institutions – decisions that require an expert evaluation of
cumulative information and [are] not readily adapted to the
8
procedural tools of judicial or administrative decisionmaking.”)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Therefore,
even if the Court had jurisdiction over the case, the complaint
must be dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
Additionally, the complaint fails to satisfy the
pleading requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8,
which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
8(a)(2).
Fed. R. Civ. P.
Rule 8’s major function is to provide notice to the
opposing party of the claims against it.
See Sanyal v. Toyota
Motor N. Am., No. 1:14cv960, at *2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 3014)
(citing 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §
1202)).
Here, NVCC cannot properly respond to the complaint
because the complaint is too speculative for NVCC to be on
notice of the claims against it.
See Garris v. Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC, No. 1:14cv118, 2014 WL 1385872, at *2 (E.D. Va.
Apr. 9, 2014) (“Plaintiffs’ claims are unintelligible.
It is
impossible to tell what any Defendant is alleged to have done
wrong, let alone whether relief is appropriate.”).
Therefore,
the complaint fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8 and, if
the Court had jurisdiction, the complaint would be dismissed on
these grounds as well.
9
IV. Conclusion
For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss this
action.
Schaeffer has thirty days from the date of this
Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order to notice his appeal.
May 12, 2015
Alexandria, Virginia
/s/
James C. Cacheris
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?