Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01838/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01838-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted November 6, 2015*

Decided November 13, 2015 

Before 

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge 

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge 

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 15-1838 

SEAN SMITH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY, et al.

 Defendants-Appellees.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Indiana,

Indianapolis Division. 

No. 1:13-cv-01650-TWP-MJD 

Tanya Walton Pratt, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Dissatisfied with his grades from Utah Valley University, Sean Smith sued the 

school and three of its employees, alleging breach of contract and violations of due 

process. Because his claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and for failure to 

state a valid claim for relief, we affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing the suit. 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is 

unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

Case: 15-1838 Document: 23 Filed: 11/13/2015 Pages: 3
No. 15-1838 Page 2 

Smith enrolled in online aviation courses at Utah Valley. In one course he 

received an “A” rather than the “A+” he believes he deserved, and a “D” in another 

course because his professor refused to accept a corrected paper in lieu of the one that he 

initially submitted. After attempts to resolve the dispute through the school’s internal 

appeals process proved unfruitful, Smith sued for damages, invoking the district court’s 

diversity jurisdiction. Smith’s amended complaint asserts breach of an implied contract 

and violations of due process arising from the University’s alleged failure to process his 

appeals according to their own policies. (He has abandoned other claims.) 

The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It reasoned that the 

Eleventh Amendment bars Smith’s claims against the University and the individual 

defendants sued in their official capacities. And it concluded that qualified immunity 

shields the school officials sued in their individual capacities. 

On appeal, Smith challenges the dismissal of his due-process and contract claims, 

but his arguments are not persuasive. Although we take as true all well-pleaded facts 

and construe them in the light most favorable to Smith, we do not assume that his legal 

conclusions are true. Hickey v. O’Bannon, 287 F.3d 656, 657–58 (7th Cir. 2002). The 

Eleventh Amendment immunizes an unconsenting state from suits for damages unless 

Congress has validly exercised its power under the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate 

the immunity. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98 (1984). State 

agencies, including public universities such as Utah Valley, and their officials sued in 

their official capacities are treated as arms of the state and immunized from damages 

suits as well. Kroll v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 907–08 (7th Cir. 1991). Utah 

has consented to damages suits in Utah state courts, but not in federal courts, see UTAH 

CODE §§ 63G-7-102(9), 63G-7-201, 63G-7-301(1)(a), and Smith identifies no federal law 

that abrogates its immunity. Therefore the district court properly dismissed all claims 

against Utah Valley and its employees sued in their official capacities. 

To the extent that Smith pursues the individual defendants in their personal 

capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he states no valid due-process claim against them. 

First, the crux of Smith’s appeal is that the defendants violated due process by failing to 

follow the school’s own appeals procedures. Yet we have long held that a public 

institution’s failure to follow state-specified procedures does not violate due process. See 

Charleston v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill., 741 F.3d 769, 772–74 (7th Cir. 2013) (concluding 

that, in dismissing plaintiff from graduate program, “[i]t may have been unfair for the 

university not to follow its own procedures . . . but it was not unconstitutional”); Osteen 

Case: 15-1838 Document: 23 Filed: 11/13/2015 Pages: 3
No. 15-1838 Page 3 

v. Henley, 13 F.3d 221, 225 (7th Cir. 1993) (concluding no due process violation resulted 

from failure to follow university’s student judicial code). Second, his claim depends on 

the existence of a protected interest in a particular grade, but he has supplied no 

authority establishing that protected interest, as he must. See Charleston, 741 F.3d at 772–

74 & n. 2. Third, in the context of public education, the Supreme Court has held that if a 

student has a protected interest in not being dismissed from a program for academic 

reasons, the only process due is limited, flexible, and informal. See Bd. of Curators of the 

Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 85–87 (1978). Smith was not dismissed from the 

program; he merely received two unwanted grades. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 15-1838 Document: 23 Filed: 11/13/2015 Pages: 3