Babakr v. Goerdel
| Decision Date | 25 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-2037-SAC-JPO,20-2037-SAC-JPO |
| Parties | MUZAFAR BABAKR, Plaintiff, v. DR. HOLLY T. GOERDEL, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
The plaintiff Muzafar Babakr ("Babakr"), a former doctoral student at the University of Kansas ("KU") in the School of Public Affairs and Administration ("SPAA"), was notified in February of 2018 that he was dismissed from the doctoral program. Representing himself, Babakr brings this action alleging discrimination, constitutional violations, breach of contract and tortious injury from the manner in which his doctoral program was administered, mentored, supervised and reviewed, and from his eventual dismissal from the program. Less than a month after filing his complaint, Babkr filed a first amended complaint (FAC) totaling 671 paragraphs and 147 pages. The defendants file a joint motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF# 21. With the filing of the Babkr's response (ECF# 32) and the defendants' reply (ECF# 36), the matter is ripe.
Rule 12(b)(6) Standards
"A pleading is required to contain 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" SEC v. Shields, 744 F.3d 633, 640 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). All well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint are accepted as true and viewed in the light most favoring the plaintiff. Farmer v. Kansas State University, 918 F.3d 1094, 1102 (10th Cir. 2019). But, when the complaint alleges legal conclusions, those allegations are not subject to the same rule of being accepted as true. Safe Streets Alliance v. Hickenlooper, 859 F.3d 865, 878 (10th Cir. 2017)
"A complaint cannot survive a motion to dismiss unless it 'contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Doe v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, 970 F.3d 1300, 1309 (10th Cir. 2020) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). To be plausible on its face, the complaint's "factual allegations [must] allow the court to 'draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'" Id. Thus, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. "In determining the plausibility of a claim, we look to the elements of the particular cause of action, keeping in mind that the Rule 12(b)(6) standard [does not] require a plaintiff to 'set forth a prima facie case for each element.'" George v. Urban Settlement Services, 833 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1192-93 (10th Cir. 2012)). "The nature and specificity of the allegations required to state a plausible claim will vary based on context." Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2011). But "mere 'labels and conclusions' and 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action' will not suffice; a plaintiff must offer specific factual allegations tosupport each claim." Id. at 1214 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
When a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court liberally construes his pleadings, but it will not act as his advocate. James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). Nor will the court excuse him from adhering to the same procedural rules as other litigants. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
The sheer length and repetitious allegations in the FAC defy the letter and spirit of Rule 8's requirement for a short and plain statement of the claims showing entitlement to relief. The FAC is also replete with allegations that are inconsistent, conclusory, and speculative. For the sake of simplicity and clarity, the court will lay out the central alleged events in the best chronological order inferred from the FAC.
Parties
The plaintiff Babkr is a citizen of Iraqi Kurdistan and entered the United States on a student visa. He currently lives in Douglas County, Kansas, and attended KU's SPAA's doctoral program. He sues the following individual defendants in their individual and official capacities.
The defendant Dr. Holly Goerdel ("Goerdel") served as the Coordinator of SPAA's doctoral program and as the chair of the SPAA's doctoral committee. She was succeeded in both positions by the defendant Dr. Charles Epp in July of 2017. She will be referred to as Coordinator Goerdel.
The defendants, Dr. Jacob T. Fowles, Dr. Dorothy M. Daley and Dr. Steven W. Maynard-Moody are members of the SPAA's doctoral committee. The defendant Dr. Heather Getha-Taylor is a former member of SPAA's doctoral committee.
The defendant Reggie Robinson was director of the SPAA until succeeded by the defendant Dr. Rosemary O'Leary in July of 2017. He will be referred to as Director Robinson. Dr. O'Leary also was Babakr's former advisor and served on the SPAA's doctoral committee.
The defendant Dr. Carl W. Lejuez is the former Dean of the College of the Liberal Arts and Sciences. The defendant Dr. Kristine Latta is the Director of the College Office of Graduate Affairs.
The plaintiff also names KU as a defendant under the Kansas Tort Claims Act, as an employer responsible and liable for its employees, and as an agency of the State of Kansas and a recipient of federal financial assistance within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
Explanation of Doctoral Program
Doctoral students in SPAA specialize in an area of study. The doctoral curriculum requires them, in part, to complete four foundation classes and take a comprehensive written examination on the foundations, to complete two methods classes, and to complete three classes in their specialization and to take a written examination conducted by the student's committee in the area of the specialization. A doctoral student also completes three cognate classes in the specialization area and then prepares a dissertation in the specialization area over which the student'scommittee orally examines the student. Babakr groups the foundations and methods classes as one part of the doctoral program, and the specialization, cognate and dissertation as the other part of the program.
Babakr alleges that the specialization examinations are offered twice each year, in February and September, and that a student's dissertation proposal typically develops following the specialization examination. Babakr repeatedly alleges the student's committee is chaired by the student's advisor.
Babakr's blames his failure to pass his first specialization examination on the committee's failure to conduct the examination in the same way done for other students. ECF# 3, ¶ 315. He was not asked questions about his dissertation. Id. at ¶ 316. He alleges his advisor Professor O'Leary chaired the committee but lacked expertise in the area of his dissertation. Id. at ¶ 317. He also disputes the grading of his answers. Id. at ¶¶ 317-318. Babakr does not allege when he failed his first attempt at the specialization examination, but presumably it occurred before Babakr was told that Dr. Goerdel would then be chairing his next specialization examination.
Allegations of National Origin Discrimination
Babakr alleges that from the outset KU's SPAA doctoral program treated him differently because he was an international student. He was denied office space which the other doctoral students enjoyed. ¶¶ 46-47. He alleges on information and belief that the SPAA doctoral program has not admitted an international student since 2013, that the only two students dismissed from the program were international students, and that another international student did not return after taking a leave of absence. ¶ 65. Babakr alleges he was the only Iraqi Kurdish student at the school. ¶66. When he entered the school in 2013, Babakr was asked about his national cultural background by other students and staff. ¶ 67. He "generally felt unwelcome." Id.
Chronological Outline of Central Events
After earning a master's degree in public administration at another university, Babakr became an international doctoral student at KU's SPAA beginning in the 2013 spring semester. Id. at ¶ 46. When he inquired about not receiving office space like that given other doctoral students, he was told that he was not working for KU. Id. Babkr's adviser was Dr. O'Leary. ECF# 3, ¶ 48.
During the 2015 spring semester, Babakr learned from Dr. O'Leary that Dr. Goerdel would chair his specialization examination. Id. at ¶ 49. Babakr spoke with Coordinator Goerdel telling her that he was against her chairing his specialization examination presently scheduled for the 2015 Fall Semester and that his examination committee should be chaired by his advisor. Id. at ¶ 52. Coordinator Goerdel declined Babakr's request. Id. at ¶ 53. But, Goerdel went on leave during the 2015 Fall Semester, so the specialization examination did not occur and had to be scheduled for the Spring Semester of 2016 when she would return. Id. at ¶ 54. Babakr alleges that Dr. O'Leary then lost interest in him due to Coordinator Goerdel's signaling and interference. Id. at ¶ 54
A month before the specialization examination scheduled for February 19, 2016, Babakr alleges he tried contacting Dr. O'Leary but was unable to meet with her until February 15, 2016. "Seeing that Dr. O'Leary was not interested, I asked Dr. Maynard-Moody who was sitting on my committee to serve as my advisor and after that the relationship came to an end with Dr. O'Leary." Id. at ¶ 328. When Dr.Maynard-Moody declined to serve as his advisor, Babakr canceled the specialization examination for February 19, 2016. ¶¶ 328-329. Babakr alleges his reasons for canceling were his advisor Dr. O'Leary's loss of interest in him and Coordinator Goerdel's attempt to chair his specialization examination "in violation of school policy." ¶ 330. Babakr began asking other faculty members...
To continue reading
Request your trial