Shaikh v. Tex. A&M Univ. Coll. of Med.
| Decision Date | 20 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-20793,16-20793 |
| Parties | DANYAL SHAIKH, Plaintiff - Appellant v. TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE; MICHAEL K. YOUNG; PAUL OGDEN, Defendants - Appellees |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
*
During his third year as a medical student at Texas A&M University College of Medicine (the "College"), Danyal Shaikh began suffering health problems caused by a pituitary tumor. After Shaikh's condition prevented him from passing a medical licensing exam by a certain deadline, the College gave him the option of being dismissed from the program or withdrawing. Hewithdrew and was denied readmission on two subsequent occasions. Shaikh sued the College and Texas A&M University President Michael Young, in his official capacity, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"), claiming violation of his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Shaikh also sued the College under two federal statutes prohibiting discrimination against disabled individuals: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504"), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. The district court dismissed Shaikh's Section 1983 and ADA claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and his Section 504 claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The following facts are taken from Shaikh's second amended complaint. In May 2010, Shaikh enrolled as a medical student at Texas A&M University College of Medicine. In May 2012, as he was preparing to take Step 1 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (the "USMLE Step 1"), Shaikh began having trouble studying and concentrating on school work. Shaikh had never experienced these problems before and expressed concerns to Dr. Gary McCord, the College's Dean of Student Affairs. Shaikh's symptoms persisted, and in September 2012, he emailed Dr. McCord, complaining once again about his difficulties studying. Dr. McCord advised Shaikh to use the free mental and behavioral health visits available to medical students at the College.
In late November 2012, Shaikh took the USMLE Step 1 but did not pass due to the ongoing health problems he was experiencing. In late January 2013, Dr. McCord advised Shaikh to take a one-year leave of absence so that he could study effectively for the USMLE Step 1. Shaikh followed Dr. McCord's recommendation, but his condition worsened over the course of the followingyear, partly because university medical staff misdiagnosed him as suffering from test phobia, anxiety, and depression. During the leave of absence, Shaikh "experienced nervousness, dizziness, severe headaches, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, upset stomach, stomach pain, eye pain, abnormal ejaculation, difficulty having an orgasm, dry mouth, decreased impulse control, irritability, weight gain without a change in diet, increased lethargy, change in sleep patterns, worsened inability to concentrate, lack of motivation, increased anxiety, loss of sexual desire, and severe emotional distress." The College's Student Promotion Committee urged Shaikh to retake the USMLE Step 1 by certain deadlines during his leave of absence—deadlines which Shaikh maintains were "arbitrary"—or face dismissal, but he was unable to comply with those demands due to his condition.
Shaikh's leave of absence ended in January 2014. At that point, the Student Promotion Committee voted to dismiss him from the medical school. Prior to the onset of his symptoms, Shaikh had never failed any of his classes, and he had passed all the required curriculum necessary to progress to his third year of medical school, including his third-year clinical rotations, which he passed with honors.
When Shaikh appealed the dismissal, the College's Appeal Committee gave him the choice of withdrawing from the school or being dismissed. Shaikh chose to withdraw because that "gave him an option to be re-admitted into the [College] or other medical colleges." After filing for withdrawal, Shaikh met with Dr. McCord, who told him that the College's dean, Dr. Paul Ogden, had indicated that if Shaikh were to apply for readmission at some point, Dr. Ogden "would entertain [Shaikh's] being readmitted and having a chance to take the [USMLE Step 1] prior to signing up for any classes."
Shaikh applied for readmission to the College in the fall of 2014. During his admission interviews, members of the College faculty told Shaikh that theywanted him to return to the school and that he had "a good chance" of being accepted back as a third-year student. Shaikh also obtained "a clearance from a psychiatrist." Nonetheless, the College denied his application for readmission. Shaikh subsequently met with the College's Dean of Admission, who told Shaikh "that the reason he [had been] denied readmission was because 'he was not an acceptable applicant and that he was a liability for psychiatric reasons.'" Shaikh also met with Dr. Ogden, who encouraged him to apply again the following year.
Shaikh applied for readmission a second time in June 2015 but was again rejected. To strengthen his application, Shaikh had enrolled in an anesthesiology program at another university. Shaikh had also attempted to retake the USMLE Step 1 but was not permitted to do so because he was not enrolled as a medical student. Around the time of his second application, the underlying cause of Shaikh's health problems was finally identified: he was diagnosed with a tumor of the pituitary gland (a part of the endocrine system located near the brain) called a prolactinoma. The tumor caused "an increase in the production of a hormone called prolactin" and "caused [Shaikh's] testosterone level to be very low," leading to "loss of memory and concentration, depression, anxiety, extreme fatigue, and muscle weakness." Shaikh "underwent immediate medical protocol which reversed the growth of [the] tumor . . . within four months." Shaikh maintains that his "current medication has no side effects" and that he "was and continues to be capable of returning to [m]edical school."
In March 2016, Shaikh filed suit against the College and Young. The College and Young moved to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court granted the motion and dismissed all of Shaikh's claims. Shaikh now appeals.1
We review de novo a district court's dismissal under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Quinn v. Guerrero, 863 F.3d 353, 363 (5th Cir. 2017); Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001).
Rule 12(b)(1) provides for dismissal due to a "lack of subject-matter jurisdiction." Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is appropriate if a claim is barred by state sovereign or Eleventh Amendment immunity. Meyers ex rel. Benzing v. Texas, 410 F.3d 236, 240-41 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Tex. Tech Univ., 171 F.3d 279, 285 n.9 (5th Cir. 1999); Warnock v. Pecos Cty., 88 F.3d 341, 343 (5th Cir. 1996) (). "The burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction." Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161. A court may dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) "on any one of three separate bases: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts." Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir. 1981). "When a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the merits." Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161.
Rule 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal due to a "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, "a complaint 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)). The factual allegations must "'raise [the plaintiff's] right to relief above the speculative level'" but need not be detailed. Lee v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 837 F.3d 523, 533 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007)). When evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court's review is limited to the live complaint, any documents attached to that complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are "central to the claim and referenced by the complaint." Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498-99 (5th Cir. 2000)). "'[A] motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted.'" Leal v. McHugh, 731 F.3d 405, 410 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Turner v. Pleasant, 663 F.3d 770, 775 (5th Cir. 2011)).
"Section 1983 provides a cause of action when a person has been deprived of federal rights under color of state law." D.A. ex rel. Latasha A. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 629 F.3d 450, 456 (5th Cir. 2010). Shaikh claims that the College and Young violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by, inter alia, requiring him to retake the USMLE Step 1 by arbitrary deadlines, constructively dismissing him from the College, and misleading him about the readmissions process. The district court concluded that the College and Young were entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial