Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00364/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00364-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Auburn University Montgomery
Defendant
Charles Oji
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES OJI, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:10-CV-364-WKW

) [WO]

AUBURN UNIVERSITY )

MONTGOMERY, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is Defendant Auburn University Montgomery’s (“AUM”) Motion

to Dismiss (Doc. # 9), which is accompanied by a Brief in Support (Doc. # 10). Plaintiff

Charlie Oji filed a Response (Doc. # 12), opposing the motion, and also filed a Motion to

Amend the Complaint (Doc. # 13). For the reasons to follow, AUM’s motion is due to be

granted, and Mr. Oji’s motion is due to be denied.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The parties do not dispute subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

and 1367; nor do the parties contest personal jurisdiction or venue. There are adequate

allegations in support of each.

II. BACKGROUND

In Counts I and II of the Complaint, Mr. Oji alleges that AUM violated his due

process and equal protection rights, as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and

enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In Count III, Mr. Oji also brings a claim for breach

Case 2:10-cv-00364-WKW-WC Document 15 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 5
of contract under Alabama law. “[T]he gravamen of Mr. Oji’s [C]omplaint is to require

AUM to perform [its] legal duty as set forth in the handbook relating to discipline of

students in the Cytotechnology Program at AUM, namely to provide him with a warning

concerning his alleged deficiencies and reinstate him in the program.” (Doc. # 12, at 2-3.)

As relief, Mr. Oji requests reinstatement, monetary damages, costs and attorney’s fees.

III. DISCUSSION

A. AUM’s Motion to Dismiss

AUM argues that as a state agency, it has immunity from suit under the Eleventh

Amendment. Because AUM is correct, it is not necessary to address AUM’s additional

1

grounds for dismissal.

 “[A] suit in which the State or one of its agencies or departments is named as the

defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment[,]” unless the state consents to or

waives the immunity. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99-100

(1984). “This jurisdictional bar applies regardless of the nature of the relief sought.” Id.

at 100; see also Stevens v. Gay, 864 F.2d 113, 115 (11th Cir. 1989) (The Eleventh

Amendment bars claims against state agencies for “money damages or prospective

injunctive relief.” (citing Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 100)). It also applies “regardless of

 “An assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity essentially challenges a court’s subject matter

1

jurisdiction.” Seaborn v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 143 F.3d 1405, 1407 (11th Cir. 1998). A Rule 12(b)(1)

motion may be treated as either a facial or factual challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction. 

Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009). Here, AUM attacks the sufficiency

of the Complaint on its face. In a facial attack, “the court construes the complaint in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff and accepts all well-pled facts alleged by in the complaint as true.” Id.

2

Case 2:10-cv-00364-WKW-WC Document 15 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 5
whether the claim is based on state law or federal law.” Flood v. Ala. Dep’t of Indus.

Relations, 948 F. Supp. 1535, 1542 (M.D. Ala. 1996) (citing Pennhurst, 465 U.S.

at 910-11).

Mr. Oji wisely has not disputed that AUM is a state agency. See Harden v. Adams,

760 F.2d 1158, 1163 (11th Cir. 1985) (“The Alabama Supreme Court has held on at least

two occasions that state universities . . . are agencies or instrumentalities of the state.”).

Nor is there any dispute that neither exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity (i.e.,

state waiver and congressional abrogation) applies in this case. Because AUM is a state

agency, the Eleventh Amendment protects it from all liability under § 1983 and state law.

Hence, AUM’s Motion to Dismiss is due to be granted based upon Eleventh Amendment

immunity.

B. Mr. Oji’s Motion to Amend the Complaint

Amendments to a complaint are governed by Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Rule 15(a) gives a plaintiff the right to “amend [his] pleading once as

a matter of course . . . before being served with a responsive pleading[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a). “For Rule 15 purposes, a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading.”

Coventry First, LLC v. McCarty, 605 F.3d 865, 869 (11th Cir. 2010). When a plaintiff

who has the right to amend the complaint as a matter of course instead moves for leave

to amend, the plaintiff waives his right to amend as a matter of course. See id. This

means that leave of the court must be obtained, although leave should be freely given

3

Case 2:10-cv-00364-WKW-WC Document 15 Filed 06/21/10 Page 3 of 5
when justice so requires. See id. at 870; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A motion to

amend, however, need not be granted when the amendment would be futile. See Bryant

v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). A proposed amendment is futile “when

the complaint as amended would still be properly dismissed.” Coventry First, 605 F.3d

at 870 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Mr. Oji has not previously amended his Complaint, and AUM has not filed a

responsive pleading. Mr. Oji could have amended his Complaint as a matter of course,

pursuant to Rule 15(a). By failing to do so, Mr. Oji’s request is governed by Rule

15(a)(2)’s general precepts.

Mr. Oji has notsubmitted a proposed amendment to the Complaint or described the

nature of the proposed amendment. Mr. Oji, however, has suggested that the purpose of

the amendment would be to correct pleading deficiencies as to the merits of his claims

against AUM. (Doc. # 12, at 5.) Importantly, no reason has been offered, and none can

be envisioned, that would save Mr. Oji’s claims against AUM from dismissal based upon

Eleventh Amendment immunity, an inquiry that is separate and distinct from the inquiry

on the merits. Mr. Oji’s Motion to Amend the Complaint, therefore, will be denied.

4

Case 2:10-cv-00364-WKW-WC Document 15 Filed 06/21/10 Page 4 of 5
IV. ORDER

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that

(1) AUM’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 9) is GRANTED based upon Eleventh

Amendment immunity, and that all claims against AUM are DISMISSED with

prejudice; and

(2) Mr. Oji’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. # 13) is DENIED.

A final judgment will be entered separately.

DONE this 21st day of June, 2010.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

Case 2:10-cv-00364-WKW-WC Document 15 Filed 06/21/10 Page 5 of 5