Shah v. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Sch.

• Decision Date: 11 September 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:13–CV–4834–D.
• Citation: 129 F.Supp.3d 480
• Parties: Varun SHAH, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL SCHOOL, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

129 F.Supp.3d 480

Varun SHAH, Plaintiff,

v.UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL SCHOOL, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:13–CV–4834–D.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.

Signed Sept. 11, 2015.

Daniel Ray Castro, Castro & Baker LLP, Austin, TX, Mark Lieberman, Corinth, TX, for Plaintiff.

Eric L. Vinson, Office of the Texas Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER, District Judge.

Following the filing of a memorandum opinion and order that addressed the merits of this lawsuit and of plaintiff's complaint, the court returns to this lawsuit brought by a plaintiff who asserts that he was disciplined and then dismissed from medical school in violation of his constitutional rights to procedural and substantive due process. Two defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint ("amended complaint") under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), presenting questions of constitutional standing and sovereign immunity, and whether plaintiff has pleaded a plausible claim on which relief can be granted. Although the court concludes that plaintiff has constitutional standing and that his suit is not barred by sovereign immunity, it holds that his amended complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The court therefore grants defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and dismisses this action against them by Rule 54(b) judgment filed today.¹

I

A

Because this case is the subject of a prior memorandum opinion and order, Shah v. University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, 54 F.Supp.3d 681 (N.D.Tex.2014) (Fitzwater, C.J.) ("Shah I "), the court will limit its discussion of the background facts and procedural history to what is pertinent to this decision. Plaintiff Varun Shah ("Shah") was enrolled as a medical student at defendant University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center ("UT Southwestern")² until he was dismissed at the end of his third year pursuant to UT Southwestern's Professionalism Policy ("Policy").³ Under the Policy, adopted in May 2010, Physicianship Evaluation Forms ("PEFs") are issued for clinical students (i.e., students in their third and fourth years) who "do not demonstrate adequate professional and personal attributes." Am. Compl. Ex. B at 9. The Policy provides that "[s]tudents who receive two or more [PEFs] in the clinical years will be placed on academic probation and can be referred to the Student Promotions Committee ( ["SPC"] ) for review of the deficiencies. The SPC can recommend dismissal." Id.

On July 2, 2012 James Wagner, M.D. ("Dr. Wagner"), the Associate Dean at UT Southwestern, issued Shah a PEF ("July 2012 PEF"), allegedly because Shah "waited too long" to request permission to begin his third year of medical school without first taking a national exam.⁴ Am. Compl. ¶ 4.56. Shah alleges that there was no "hard and fast deadline" to request additional time to take the exam, and that had he been notified that not requesting more time would result in a PEF, he would have taken the exam earlier, or made his request for more time sooner.

The following spring, defendant Belinda Vicioso, M.D. ("Dr. Vicioso") was the instructor for one of Shah's internal medicine clinical rotations. Shah alleges that, during the two-week rotation, he turned in a very detailed, comprehensive "write-up" on a patient, but Dr. Vicioso refused to read it because Shah had requested a few more hours to research his patient's symptoms.

Dr. Vicioso instead ordered Shah to prepare overnight a second write-up on a new patient. Shah did as he was instructed, but Dr. Vicioso rejected the second write-up without reading it, stating that it was "sloppy" because it contained typos, and the formatting of the first page was skewed. Rather than work with Shah to improve the two write-ups he had submitted, Dr. Vicioso ordered Shah to evaluate an entirely new patient and submit a third write-up near the end of his rotation. The third patient was assigned to Shah when only three days remained in the rotation. The patient was delirious when first admitted, and she could not communicate with Shah until the following day. With only two days remaining in the rotation, Shah wrote a short, five-page report. He was in the process of writing a more detailed, comprehensive write-up when, on the last day of the rotation, Dr. Vicioso suddenly and without warning loudly proclaimed to Shah in a public hallway that she was giving him a failing grade and was going to write up a PEF because he had not yet submitted the third write-up, even though the third write-up was not yet due.

The following Monday, the course/clerkship director, Amit Shah, M.D. ("Dr. Shah"), called Shah into his office and informed him that he agreed with Dr. Vicioso, that Shah would fail the rotation, and that Dr. Shah was filing the PEF ("March 2013 PEF"). Shah contends that Dr. Shah failed to conduct a full investigation on the merits before issuing the PEF and, instead, "rubber-stamp[ed]" Dr. Vicioso's recommendation. Id. ¶ 4.36. Approximately two months later, Dr. Shah wrote a letter to the SPC ("May 2013 Letter") detailing the "meetings and discussions regarding professionalism issues ... that arose during [Shah's] internal medicine rotation." Am. Compl. Ex. C at 1. Dr. Shah stated that because this was Shah's second PEF, he "knew that it would come before the SPC and completed a thorough investigation to assist members of the committee in making a decision about next steps for [Shah]." Id. Before submitting it to the SPC, Dr. Shah did not inform Shah that he was submitting the letter, did not give him a copy of the letter, and did not give him an opportunity to respond.

The SPC decided to dismiss Shah from UT Southwestern. Patricia Bergen, M.D. ("Dr. Bergen"), who had issued a negative clinical evaluation form during Shah's pre-clinical years, was the head of the SPC committee that decided to dismiss Shah. Although Shah filed an appeal, he alleges that "the appellate process was a[ ] sham" because the appellate committee was composed of the same people who were on the committee that voted to dismiss him. Am. Compl. ¶ 4.71.

B

Shah filed this lawsuit against UT Southwestern and various members of the UT Southwestern faculty in their individual capacities. He alleged claims against all defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (for violations of his rights to procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection) and under Texas law, and alleged claims against only UT Southwestern for violating § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and for breach of contract under Texas law. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 101.106 (West 2011). The court granted UT Southwestern's Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss Shah's § 1983, ADA, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") claims based on Eleventh Amendment immunity; granted UT Southwestern's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Shah's Rehabilitation Act claim; granted the individual defendants' motions to dismiss Shah's § 1983 claims based on qualified immunity; granted the individual defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss Shah's IIED claim; and granted Shah leave to replead. Shah I, 54 F.Supp.3d at 707.

Shah has filed his amended complaint in which he names as defendants UT Southwestern and J. Gregory Fitz, M.D. ("Dean Fitz") and Drs. Bergen, Vicioso, and Shah (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), suing the Individual Defendants only in their official capacities. Shah alleges that, "as applied," the Policy is unconstitutional because it violates his substantive due process rights, and that even if the Policy itself is not unconstitutional, his dismissal is invalid because defendants failed to provide him the procedural due process required for a disciplinary dismissal. Shah seeks, inter alia, "a judicial declaration that his dismissal is invalid, and injunctive relief preventing Defendants from disseminating this information to any other universities." Am. Compl. ¶ 6.3; see also id. ¶ 6.6.

UT Southwestern and Dean Fitz⁵ move to dismiss Shah's amended complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Shah opposes the motion.

II

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and absent jurisdiction conferred by statute, lack the power to adjudicate claims." Stockman v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir.1998). "The burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction. Accordingly, the plaintiff constantly bears the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist." Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.2001) (per curiam) (citations omitted).

"In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court evaluates the sufficiency of [the plaintiff's] ... complaint by ‘accepting all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’ " Bramlett v. Med. Protective Co. of Fort Wayne, Ind., 855 F.Supp.2d 615, 618 (N.D.Tex.2012) (Fitzwater, C.J.) (quoting In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). To survive defendants' motion, Shah must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ); see also Twombly, 550...