Hein v. Arkansas State University
| Decision Date | 30 July 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. J-C-95-218.,J-C-95-218. |
| Parties | Germmaine HEIN, Plaintiff, v. ARKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY, and its board of trustees, Larry Ross, Harold Thomas, Bill Phillips, Charlotte Bradbury, Harold Perrin, Dr. Leslie Wyatt, President, and Scott Lewis, Executive Assistant to the President, in their official and individual capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
R. Theodor Stricker, Jonesboro, AR, for Plaintiff.
Leigh Anne Yeargan, Arkansas Atty. General's Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants.
Pending before the Court is defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. Num.31). For the reasons hereinafter stated, the Motion is granted.
Plaintiff, Germmaine Hein, is a citizen of the nation of Uruguay. Ms. Hein was born in Uruguay and moved to Bearing Springs, Michigan on August 18, 1991. Sometime during 1991, the plaintiff married Rudolf Hein. At the time of the marriage Mr. Hein was also a citizen of Uruguay and had been admitted to the United States on a permanent immigrant visa. The plaintiff, however, was admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant student visa (F-1).
While in Bearing Springs, Ms. Hein enrolled at Andrew University to study English as a second language. The plaintiff and her husband lived in Bearing Springs until December 1991, at which time the couple moved to Jonesboro. Mr. Hein, who was a minister, had been assigned a position in a local church. In January of 1992, Ms. Hein enrolled in the Center for English as a Second Language program at Arkansas State University. Ms. Hein subsequently completed the Second Language program. On May 28, 1992, she applied for student enrollment at ASU as an international student and was accepted by the University.
In June of 1992, after residing in Arkansas for six months, the plaintiff sought status as an in-state resident for tuition purposes in the nursing program at Arkansas State University. University officials denied her application. The University's denial of in-state tuition status was based on its construction of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education's "Residency Classification for Tuition Purposes by Public Colleges and Universities." Pursuant to these regulations, "[a] student should be classified as an instate student for tuition purposes only if his or her legal residence is located in Arkansas." See Exhibit "B" to Plaintiff's Memorandum In Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, "Residency Classification for Tuition Purposes by Public Colleges and Universities," ¶ 1. To acquire such residence in the State of Arkansas, "... an individual must have established a legal home of permanent character, resided in Arkansas for six continuous months, and have no present intention of changing residence to a location outside Arkansas." Id. ¶ 7. Determination of legal residence for tuition purposes is based upon a "... review by institutional officials of all relevant circumstances which together may reasonably demonstrate legal residence and state of mind regarding residency intent." Id. ¶ 8 (emphasis added).
According to the University, Ms. Hein could not meet these qualifications because she was present in the United States on a F-1 student visa. In order to be granted a F-1 student visa, the plaintiff certified the following:
I certify that I seek to enter or remain in the United States temporarily, and solely for the purpose of pursuing a full course of study at the school named on Page 1 of this form. See Defendant's Exhibit 3 to Motion for Summary Judgment, Certificate of Eligibility for Non-immigrant (F-1) Student Status — For Academic and Language Studies, ¶ 11. The University concluded that Ms. Hein's status as a F-1 non-immigrant precluded her, as a matter of law, from forming the requisite intent to become an Arkansas resident.
Ms. Hein contends that during the course of her nursing studies she continued to pursue resident tuition status. This included presenting the University with proof that her husband had been naturalized in May of 1994. According to the plaintiff, this fact was evidence of her intent to remain in the United States and to make Arkansas her permanent home, as required by the Department of Higher Education's regulations. The efforts of the plaintiff to gain in-state residency status are documented by factual evidence. This evidence includes a letter dated January 19, 1994 from the University to Mr. Theodor Stricker, the plaintiff's attorney. This letter demonstrates that the plaintiff was actively pursuing in-state residency status during her enrollment at ASU. See Exhibit "A" to Plaintiff's Memorandum In Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Letter dated January 19, 1994 from Scott W. Lewis to Theodor Stricker.
The defendant asserts that Ms. Hein was not eligible for in-state tuition status because she never attempted to change her immigration status from F-1. Furthermore, the University contends that Ms. Hein never submitted an application for immediate relative visa or permanent alien visa to ASU. These factors would have demonstrated an intent on the part of the plaintiff to make Arkansas her permanent home.
Plaintiff asserts that during the course of her attempts to gain resident status, she never received a copy of any preexisting official policy adopted by the University regarding non-immigrant aliens and tuition classifications, nor was she afforded a formal hearing on the matter of her status or given written notice of the appeals procedure. Ms. Hein was charged tuition at the nonresident tuition rate throughout her education at ASU. In May of 1995, Ms. Hein graduated from ASU with a degree in nursing.1 She now resides with her husband in Monroe, Louisiana and has since May of 1996. However, at the time she filed this lawsuit, Ms. Hein was enrolled as a nursing student at ASU. See Amended Complaint, ¶ 4.
The Amended Complaint alleges that the plaintiff moved to the State of Arkansas from her former home in Michigan on December 12, 1991 with the intent to make Arkansas her home and domicile. Further, by denying the plaintiff in-state residency status, the defendant is alleged to have violated various constitutional rights of the plaintiff. Among these are the following:
1. That by adopting the rules and regulations whereby a legal resident and domiciliary of the State of Arkansas can be denied recognition as a resident of the State of Arkansas for tuition and registration purposes, the defendant has attempted to assume or usurp powers vested only in the legislature of the State of Arkansas under its constitutional authority. Said rules and regulations are without any legal effect since they were enacted without any power or authority;
2. That the rules and regulations constitute an infringement on the freedom of movement protected by the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution;
3. That the rules and regulations constitute an unreasonable and invidiously discriminatory classification and, therefore, are a denial of the equal protection of laws under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution;
4. That the rules and regulations place a discriminatory burden on an alien resident lawfully within the United States and conflict with the constitutionally derived federal power to regulate immigration in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution;
5. That the rules and regulations constitute a violation of the due process, equal protection and immunity clauses of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas; and
6. That defendants exceeded and abused their discretion by denying the plaintiff's claim for registration as a resident of the State of Arkansas; that the decision was erroneous and contrary to law, and the entire process was arbitrary and unjust.
See Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 18-24. Plaintiff prays that she be awarded a refund of the nonresident tuition fee she paid in the amount of $6,928.00, plus interest. Additionally, she requests that she be registered with ASU as a resident of the State of Arkansas for future tuition purposes and she seeks an order which would require ASU to cease applying a citizenship requirement to the plaintiff and to any other person in the same or similar circumstances. Finally, plaintiff requests her costs and attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting this case.
By Order of the Court dated May 7, 1996, plaintiff's monetary claims against ASU and the remaining defendants in their official capacities were dismissed pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. The Court noted that "[a]s an agency of the State of Arkansas, Arkansas State University, along with its Board of Trustees and the individual University officials named in this suit, are immune from damages claims under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. 5 § 20 of the Arkansas Constitution." Thus, the only remaining claims before the Court are for monetary damages against the individual defendants and the claims for prospective equitable relief.
The defendant has moved for summary judgment based on the following grounds: (1) plaintiff has failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8; (2) this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this controversy; (3) the issues before the Court are moot; (4) defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; and (5) plaintiff has failed to state a claim. Each of these arguments will be addressed in turn.
It is well-settled that the party moving for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating that the Rule 56(c) test is satisfied and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Under Rule 56(c), the moving party must prove that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). Because the burden is on the movant, the evidence presented is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prasad v. Henson
...and eliminate the need for court action.'”). Accordingly, the Court finds Prasad's complaint for declaratory judgment moot. See Hein, 972 F.Supp. at 1182 (explaining “a live controversy must exist at all stages of review, not merely when the complaint is filed.”). In his supplemental briefi......