Ashokkumar v. Elbaum

• Decision Date: 15 March 2013
• Docket Number: No. 4:12–CV–3067.,4:12–CV–3067.
• Citation: 932 F.Supp.2d 996
• Parties: Padmapriya ASHOKKUMAR, Plaintiff, v. Sebastian ELBAUM, Professor at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska

932 F.Supp.2d 996

Padmapriya ASHOKKUMAR, Plaintiff,

v.Sebastian ELBAUM, Professor at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:12–CV–3067.

United States District Court, D. Nebraska.

March 15, 2013.

Andrew D. Weeks, V. Gene Summerlin, Jr., Husch, Blackwell Law Firm, Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff.

Andre R. Barry, Cline, Williams Law Firm, John C. Wiltse, University of Nebraska, David W. Watermeier, Morrow, Poppe Law Firm, Lincoln, Tara A. Stingley, Cline, Williams Law Firm, Omaha, NE, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN M. GERRARD, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on several motions filed by the defendants: Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3) motions for judgment on the pleadings filed by all defendants, and Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 motions for summary judgment also filed by three of those defendants.

The plaintiff was a student in a Ph.D. program at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, and became involved in a dispute over alleged academic misconduct. Although she was exonerated, she had trouble finding a professor who was willing to work with her to continue the research she had been conducting for her dissertation. The plaintiff sued these defendants, all current or former employees of the State of Nebraska, after her eventual discontinuation from the Ph.D. program. The plaintiff's claims for relief fall into three categories for analytical purposes: constitutional tort claims, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; state-law tort claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; and a state-law breach of contract claim. The defendants have been sued in both their individual and official capacities.

The plaintiff's allegations, if proven, demonstrate that the plaintiff has been treated unfairly by at least some of these defendants. But that does not necessarily mean that all of the defendants acted unlawfully or unconstitutionally—and even constitutional claims must be brought within the time required by law. Here, not all of the plaintiff's claims were timely, and they do not all state a claim for legal relief. The Court concludes that the plaintiff's case may proceed against one of these defendants, in his official capacity, for injunctive relief pursuant to Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). For various reasons, as explained below, the plaintiff's other claims will be dismissed.

BACKGROUND

At the time the events giving rise to this case took place, the plaintiff, Padmapriya Ashokkumar, was a student at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln pursuing a Ph.D. in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering (the Department). Filing 1 at 2. Defendants Sebastian Elbaum, Scott Henninger, Lorin Hochstein, and Steve Goddard were Department professors.¹ Filing 1 at 2. Kimberly Andrews Espy was the Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and the Research Integrity Officer. Filing 1 at 3. And Prem Paul was the Vice Chancellor for Research and the Dean of Graduate Studies. Filing 1 at 3.

In order to obtain her Ph.D. in Computer Science, the plaintiff had to meet the Ph.D. admission requirements, be admitted to the program, complete 90 credit hours, pass a Ph.D. qualifying examination, pass a comprehensive examination, and prepare and defend a dissertation in an approved area of research. Filing 1 at 4. The program of study and general area of research for a student's dissertation must be approved by the student's supervisory committee. The dissertation is prepared under the guidance of the student's faculty advisor, and must also be approved by the student's reading committee (a subcommittee of the supervisory committee) and defended in an oral examination and presentation before the supervisory committee. Filing 1 at 4–5. To complete a Ph.D., a student must have a faculty advisor and supervisory committee. Filing 1 at 5.

From September 2002 to April 2006, Henninger was the plaintiff's advisor. Filing 1 at 5. The plaintiff's research topic was “Using Ontologies for Supporting the Use of Usability Design Patterns.” Filing 1 at 5. But the plaintiff was unsatisfied with Henninger for a number of reasons: she alleges he was disorganized, unsuccessfully submitted papers for publication, missed deadlines for publication submissions, was unprofessional, and was generally unfocused on guiding the plaintiff toward completion of her dissertation. Filing 1 at 5. With the approval of the Department chair, the plaintiff terminated her advisory relationship with Henninger. Filing 1 at 5.

Henninger was displeased, and tried to convince the plaintiff to reconsider. Filing 1 at 5–6. She declined. Filing 1 at 6. In July 2006, the plaintiff began an advisory relationship with Elbaum and Hochstein. Filing 1 at 6. Her research topic was “Using Ontologies for Software Testing Problems.” Filing 1 at 6. But the plaintiff alleges that Henninger told her she could not undertake any research relating to the use of ontologies unless she agreed to make him her co-advisor and a member of her supervisory committee, because he believed he had an “exclusive claim” to any research relating to ontologies at the University. Filing 1 at 6. The plaintiff alleges that when she refused, Henninger threatened her, saying that it would be his “ ‘personal vendetta’ ” to “ ‘throw [her] out of the university[.]’ ” Filing 1 at 6.

The plaintiff spoke to her Department chair about Henninger's conduct. Filing 1 at 6. The Department chair conducted a meeting with, among others, Henninger, Hochstein, and Elbaum. Filing 1 at 7. At the meeting, it was apparently agreed that the plaintiff could continue to pursue her Ph.D. in her chosen area of research. Filing 1 at 7. She did so, and submitted a paper for publication that had been co-authored with Elbaum and Hochstein. Filing 1 at 7. Henninger also submitted a paper for publication that identified himself as the sole author, although it was (according to the plaintiff) substantially the same as a paper that had been drafted by Henninger and the plaintiff. Filing 1 at 7–8. Henninger complained about the plaintiff's paper with Elbaum and Hochstein, asserting that it infringed on “his” research area. Filing 1 at 8.

On April 4, 2007, the plaintiff initiated a formal charge of plagiarism against Henninger, by informing Espy of her allegations regarding Henninger's paper. Filing 1 at 9. On April 12, Henninger initiated a formal charge of plagiarism against the plaintiff, Elbaum, and Hochstein, claiming that their joint paper was based on his work. Filing 1 at 9. A University inquiry committee was responsible for reviewing the formal charges. Filing 1 at 9. During the inquiry committee's review, settlement proposals were made to the plaintiff, but she refused them, because they involved either making Henninger a co-advisor or adding him to her supervisory committee, or required her to dismiss her plagiarism charge. Filing 1 at 10. Paul decided to convene an investigation committee to review the charges against the plaintiff and Henninger. Filing 1 at 10. Paul dismissed Henninger's charge as against Elbaum and Hochstein. Filing 1 at 10.

The investigation committee gathered evidence and produced a draft report recommending that Henninger's charge against the plaintiff be dismissed. Filing 1 at 10–11. The report also noted that the members of the committee were “ ‘disturbed’ ” by the tendency of many interviewed faculty to blame the plaintiff for the investigation, not for plagiarism, “ ‘but instead for perceived intransigence during attempts to negotiate a settlement....’ ” Filing 1 at 11. The report found

“ample evidence that some or most of the involved faculty allowed the discussion of intellectual property to become conflated with a dispute over the composition of [the plaintiff]'s supervisory committee. The interviews revealed a hierarchy in which the needs and rights of a graduate student were somehow less important than those of faculty members and in which the serious responsibility for graduate education was allowed to become subordinate to the resolution of a dispute between groups of faculty members.”Filing 1 at 11. And the report found the plaintiff's allegations against Henninger to be true. In July 2008, Paul, the University's deciding official, adopted the recommendations of the investigation committee. Filing 1 at 12.

But the plaintiff had been unable to continue her research work during the investigation. Filing 1 at 12. And even after the draft report cleared her, Elbaum refused to serve as her advisor, telling her that his refusal was based on her unwillingness to accept the settlement proposals that had been made to her. Filing 1 at 12. Hochstein told her that he would no longer serve as her advisor unless she changed her research topic, and in any event he left the University in May 2008 for another position. Filing 1 at 12.

The plaintiff told Espy that Elbaum and Hochstein had refused to work with her, and asked that she be allowed to finish her Ph.D. on her existing research topic. Filing 1 at 13. But Goddard, who was by then the Department chair, told the plaintiff that it was her responsibility to find another advisor. Filing 1 at 13. None of the Department faculty would agree to serve as her advisor on her existing research topic. Filing 1 at 13. The plaintiff alleges that Espy and Goddard did nothing to help her complete her research on her chosen topic. Filing 1 at 14. Henninger left the University in December 2008, and the plaintiff alleges that before he left, he influenced other faculty not to advise the plaintiff and to block her from receiving her Ph.D. on her existing research topic. Filing 1 at 14.

The plaintiff alleges that the University had a duty to protect her from retaliation based on the charge of academic misconduct made against her. Filing 1 at 14. Specifically, she alleges that according to the University misconduct policy, University officials were required to make “all reasonable and practical...