Easley v. UNIV. OF MICH. BD. OF REGENTS
| Decision Date | 20 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-CV-7560-AA.,84-CV-7560-AA. |
| Parties | Kendrix M. EASLEY, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN BOARD OF REGENTS, Deane Baker, Paul W. Brown, Neal D. Nielsen, Sarah Goodard Power, Thomas A. Roach, Veronica L. Smith, Nellie Varner and James Waters, each individually and as members of said board; Terry Sandalow, individually and as Dean of Law School; Theodore St. Antoine, Peter Westen, Beverly Pooley, each individually and as law professors; Susan Eklund, individually and as Assistant Dean of Students and Kris Munroe, individually and as Administrative Assistant, Jointly and Severally, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Douglas L. Webster, Southfield, Mich., for plaintiff.
Doris M. Harker, Ann Arbor, Mich., for defendants.
This lawsuit arises out of a series of events that have prevented plaintiff, Kendrix Easley, from receiving his Juris Doctor degree from University of Michigan Law School. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint sets forth plaintiff's claims in eight counts. Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a federal question being at issue.
The matter before me is defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment. In analyzing whether I should grant the Motion to Dismiss, I must view the alleged facts in a light most favorable to plaintiff. Therefore, any statement of the alleged facts should not be interpreted as findings by me; rather, the facts that follow are stated in a light most favorable to plaintiff.
Plaintiff began his studies at University of Michigan Law School in May, 1979. In preparation for graduation plaintiff discussed the necessary credit hours and academic requirements with defendant Kris Munroe, Recorder and Administrative Assistant at the law school. This discussion took place during December, 1981. Another discussion on the same topic took place among plaintiff, Monroe, and defendant Dean Susan Eklund in January, 1982. Plaintiff was told that he would meet the requirements for graduation if he completed his final semester.
On May 15, 1982, two days after plaintiff completed his last law school examination, he attended the University of Michigan Law School Senior Day Activities. Plaintiff did not receive a Juris Doctor degree certificate at the Senior Day event, but he did receive a certificate of lifetime membership to the Law School Lawyers' Club.
On June 18, 1982, plaintiff met with defendant Professor Theodore St. Antoine regarding the grade plaintiff received in St. Antoine's employment discrimination course. St. Antoine agreed to raise plaintiff's grade, but plaintiff continued to protest that the grade he received was too low. Harsh words were spoken, and plaintiff was told to leave St. Antoine's office.
On July 15, 1982, plaintiff was notified by Eklund that St. Antoine had charged plaintiff with cheating on his employment discrimination final examination. St. Antoine had informed Eklund of the charge in a memorandum sent to her after St. Antoine had raised plaintiff's grade from a "D" to a "D+." The Michigan Committee on Professional Responsibilities was advised, and plaintiff was instructed to withdraw from taking the Michigan Bar Exam.
On July 16, 1982, plaintiff was informed by Eklund that he had received only five credit hours for completing Professor James Martin's civil procedure course instead of the six credit hours he needed to meet the total credits requirement for graduation. Thus, plaintiff was informed that he was one credit short of meeting graduation requirements.
After the St. Antoine cheating charge plaintiff presented a paper entitled "Comparative Analysis of African and American Slave Systems" to defendant Professor Peter Westen. Plaintiff claims that he presented the paper as a pretext for meeting with Westen to talk about the St. Antoine cheating charge. After reading plaintiff's paper and checking sources, Westen accused plaintiff of cheating, specifically plagiarism.
In separate hearings on the cheating charges plaintiff was found not guilty on the St. Antoine charge and guilty on the Westen charge.
Plaintiff has sued the University of Michigan Board of Regents as an official board and as individuals. In their official capacities the Board of Regents are an agency of the state, see Ewing v. Board of Regents of University of Michigan, 552 F.Supp. 881 (E.D.Mich.1982), rev'd on other grounds, 742 F.2d 913 (6th Cir.1984); Marwil v. Board of Regents, Civil Action No. 79-7331 (E.D.Mich., July 3, 1980), and as such, they are immune from suit. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 3058, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978). Plaintiff has not alleged that the State of Michigan has consented to suit, and I hold that they have not. Therefore, I dismiss the University of Michigan Board of Regents in their official capacities. In any event the Board, qua Board, is not a necessary party to grant the relief sought.
Plaintiff has also sued the Board of Regents in their individual capacities. Whether they can be sued in this capacity is not relevant here. In looking at the facts in a light most favorable to plaintiff, none of the acts or omissions made by the Regents as individuals support a claim upon which relief can be granted. Therefore, I dismiss the Board of Regents defendants in their individual capacities.
I question whether I can entertain plaintiff's state claims against remaining defendants. The principles of comity militate against a federal court directing state officials, in this case deans, professors, and a recorder at University of Michigan Law School, in how...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonadonna v. Cooperman, Civ. A. No. 84-1104.
... ... Ann Arbor Public Schools, 569 F.Supp. 1502, 1508-09 (E.D.Mich.1983). In conducting such inquiry, the court is aware that it does not ... ...
-
Easley v. University of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 84-CV-7560-AA.
...Opinion, I dismissed all except three claims. I also dismissed plaintiff's suit against the Regents of the University, with prejudice, 619 F.Supp. 418. 2 A bench trial was held on December 3, 6, 9, and 11, 1985. This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law required b......
-
Easley v. University of Michigan Bd. of Regents
...jurisdictional basis; and (4) denied summary judgment and declined to dismiss Counts II, III, and IV. Easley v. University of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 619 F.Supp. 418 (E.D.Mich.1985). The remaining claims, Counts II, III, and IV, were brought under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981, 1982, and 1983. Easl......
-
Easley v. University of Michigan Bd. of Regents
...II, III and IV, and declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged in Counts V, VI, VII and VIII, 619 F.Supp. 418 (E.D.Mich.1985), dismissing those claims without For an understanding of what occurred next, we burden this opinion with a quotation from a portion ......