Nwaubani v. Grossman

• Decision Date: 25 November 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–2250.,14–2250.
• Parties: Chidiebere NWAUBANI, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Divina GROSSMAN, in her official capacity as Chancellor, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, and in her individual capacity, et al., Defendants, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

806 F.3d 677

Chidiebere NWAUBANI, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.Divina GROSSMAN, in her official capacity as Chancellor, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, and in her individual capacity, et al., Defendants, Appellees.

No. 14–2250.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Nov. 25, 2015.

Eric Nwaubanion brief for appellant.

Maura Healey, Attorney General, Dierdre Heatwole, Special Assistant Attorney General, General Counsel, and Denise Barton, Assistant Counsel, on brief for appellees.

Opinion

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

This appeal arises out of a district court's decision to combine a preliminary injunction hearing with trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2). We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

In 2005, Chidiebere Nwaubani (“Nwaubani”) was hired as the director of the African American Studies Program at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, and then subsequently also appointed as a tenured Associate Professor in the university's History Department.

Over the years, Nwaubani's relationship with the university got rocky. For our purposes, we need not delve too far into these details, but suffice it to say that the crux of the conflict centered on disagreements about Nwaubani's performance as director of the African American Studies Program and on Nwaubani's efforts to get out from under the thumb of the History Department, whose negative annual evaluations in 2006–07 and 2007–08, Nwaubani says, resulted in his being passed over for a promotion to full Professor status in subsequent years. Things came to a head and Nwaubani was placed on unpaid administrative leave on July 10, 2013, and then notified on November 8, 2013 that the university had commenced termination proceedings against him.

This prompted Nwaubani, represented by counsel, to file suit, alleging various causes of action, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983for violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Nwaubani filed his original complaint on October 11, 2013, but filed on January 28, 2014 an amended complaint and a separate motion for preliminary injunction, requesting that the district court order the ongoing termination proceedings be halted and Nwaubani be reinstated as director of the African American Studies Program.¹The defendants moved to dismiss this first amended complaint on the ground that it failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).²The district court denied the motion without prejudice, and instead directed Nwaubani to amend the complaint to comply with Rule 8.

On March 14, 2014, Nwaubani filed his second amended complaint, along with an amended motion for preliminary injunction (which more or less requested the same relief as the first motion for preliminary injunction). Now here is how the case came to be before us today. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on April 18, 2014, again arguing that it still suffered from the same pleading defects, and as such did not comply with Rule 8. They also contended that the claims against some of the defendants should be dismissed on administrative exhaustion grounds. On June 10, 2014, the district court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss, at which Nwaubani's counsel did not show up.³By electronic order issued that day, the district court both granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (on the written briefs, since no hearing was held), and also sua spontecombined the motion for preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.⁴

The university terminated Nwaubani on June 18, 2014. The next week, Nwaubani's counsel filed two motions for reconsideration of the district court's June 10, 2014 order, which combined the preliminary injunction hearing with trial. He now appeals that order, along with the district court's denials of his motions for reconsideration.

During the pendency of this interlocutory appeal, the district court has proceeded with the case, which is currently in the summary judgment phase below.⁵

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2)⁶provides that “[b]efore or after beginning the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the court may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the hearing.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(2). Nwaubani does not dispute that the district court had authority under Rule 65(a)(2)to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with trial, but argues that it did so improperly when it ordered consolidation without also expediting trial. As we discuss below, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's order, so the appeal is dismissed.

Although, as a general rule, an order must be final before we may consider it on appeal, see28 U.S.C. § 1291, we have appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions,” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Section 1292(a)(1)'s limited exception to the finality principle, however, must be “strictly construed” and any “[d]oubts as to [its] applicability ... are to be resolved against immediate appealability,” Morales Feliciano v. Rullan,303 F.3d 1, 6–7 (1st Cir.2002), in keeping with the “general congressional policy against piecemeal review,” Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc.,450 U.S. 79, 84, 101 S.Ct. 993, 67 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981).

Where an interlocutory order does not expressly deny injunctive relief, as is the case here, a party may only appeal if (1) the district court's decision had the practical effect of denying injunctive relief; (2) the denial of injunctive relief would “cause serious (if not irreparable) harm”; and (3) the order can effectively be challenged only through an immediate appeal. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of N.Y., Inc. v. Colombani,712 F.3d 6, 12 (1st Cir.2013)(citing Carson,450 U.S. at 83–84, 101 S.Ct. 993). Here, even if we assume Nwaubani has met the first and second requirements, he cannot meet the third, so we lack appellate jurisdiction.

As to the first requirement, Nwaubani argues that because the district court consolidated the preliminary injunction hearing with trial but never held an expedited trial, the consolidation order had the effect of denying a preliminary injunction. Indeed, the district court's docket reveals that in the year-and-a-half since the consolidation order was entered, the court has continued to proceed with the case, but to date has neither held nor scheduled a consolidated merits proceeding. In the last line of its consolidation order, the district court did request that “defense counsel confer with plaintiff's counsel to determine a trial date,” but it is unclear from the record and from the parties' briefs whether the consolidated proceeding was never scheduled because of a failure on the court's part or because the parties failed to follow up on the court's request.⁷If, for example, the district court improperly refused to hold an expedited merits proceeding, Nwaubani's argument that the consolidation order effectively foreclosed him from a preliminary injunction may have some merit. Cf. Fideicomiso De La Tierra Del Caño Martín Peña v. Fortuño,582 F.3d 131, 133–34 (1st Cir.2009)(per curiam) (holding that the district court's denial of a temporary restraining order did not have the practical effect of denying a preliminary injunction because “further interlocutory relief” remained available, and the court “gave every indication that it [was] working to resolve threshold matters in order to clear the way for a definitive, reviewable ruling on the preliminary injunction”). For our purposes today, however, we need not decide whether the consolidation was an effective denial—we will assume it had the practical effect of denying a preliminary injunction and that the first requirement is met.

Moving on to the second requirement, we likewise assume, favorably to Nwaubani, that it is also met, though we are doubtful that he has shown the denial of injunctive relief has caused serious, if not irreparable harm.⁸

Yet, even assuming these first two requirements are met, we lack jurisdiction because Nwaubani fails to meet the third requirement in that he cannot show that the order is only effectively challenged on immediate appeal. Colombani,712 F.3d at 12.

Nwaubani argues that immediate appeal is necessary because if he “awaits the final determination of his case, the damage to his property interest in continued employment at [the university] will have already been done.” But at the time of the filing of this appeal, Nwaubani had already been terminated, so the damage to which he refers was already past. Furthermore, Nwaubani does not argue that any rights he may have if he succeeds on the merits, whether they be rights to back pay and money damages, or equitable...