*

Afterexaminingthebriefsandrecord,wehaveconcludedthatoralargumentis

unnecessary.Thus,theappealissubmittedonthebriefsandrecord.SeeFED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

United States Court of Appeals

FortheSeventhCircuit

Chicago,Illinois60604

SubmittedDecember16,2010*

DecidedDecember16,2010

Before

JOHNL.COFFEY,CircuitJudge

JOELM.FLAUM,CircuitJudge

ANNCLAIREWILLIAMS,CircuitJudge

No.102150

BETTIEPULLENWALKER,

PlaintiffAppellant,

v.

ROOSEVELTUNIVERSITY,etal.,

DefendantsAppellees.

AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrict

CourtfortheNorthernDistrictofIllinois,

EasternDivision.

No.09C5426

JohnW.Darrah,

Judge.

ORDER

BettiePullenWalkerfiledthisbreachofcontractsuitagainstRooseveltUniversity,

theuniversity’sBoardofTrustees,andseveralofitscurrentandformeremployees.Pullen

Walkerclaimsthatthedefendantsbreachedanimpliedcontractgoverningthetermsofher

enrollmentwhentheuniversityexpelledherfromadoctoralprogramin2001.Herlatest

action,theseventhinaseriesofsuitsarisingfromtheexpulsion,wasbroughtinstatecourt

butremovedbythedefendantsontheassertedbasisthatitstatesafederalclaimunderTitle

NONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITION

Tobecitedonlyinaccordancewith

Fed.R.App.P. 32.1
No.102150 Page2

IXoftheEducationAmendmentActof1972,see20U.S.C.§1681(a).Thedefendantsthen

movedtodismissthecomplaintonthegroundofclaimpreclusion.Thedistrictcourt

grantedthemotion,andPullenWalkerappeals,arguingthatthedefendantsimproperly

removedthesuit.

PullenWalkerfashionedhercomplaintasa“refiling”ofabreachofcontractaction

shebroughtinstatecourtagainstthesamedefendantsin2005.Thedefendantshad

removedthatcase,too,butafterconcludingthatthecomplaintraisednofederalquestion,

thedistrictcourtremandedthesuittostatecourt,wherePullenWalkervoluntarily

dismissedit.Thecurrentcomplaint,captioned“Plaintiff’scomplaintfiledwithinoneyear

ofvoluntarydismissal,”isPullenWalker’sattempttoresurrecther2005case;itusesthe

samecasenumberasthe2005complaint,andoverthecourseofits15pagesallegesthe

samefactualdetailsandlegaltheories,whichboildowntoaclaimthatPullenWalkerwas

deniedthebenefitsofanimpliedcontractwhentheuniversityexpelledheronfalsecharges,

afterashaminvestigation,andinviolationofitsownpolicies.Thecomplaintidentifiestwo

Illinoisstatutesasprovidingacauseofaction,see735 ILL. COMP. STAT.5/13207;815ILL.

COMP. STAT.505/1,andrefersrepeatedlytoIllinoiscontractlawand,morebroadly,the

contractualrelationshipbetweenauniversityanditsstudents.Theonlyreferencetofederal

lawcomesonpageeight,andreadsasfollows:

Congressenactedlegislation(1972)forprotectionofstudentsrightsin

educationacrosslevelsthatrequiresinstitutionstoabidebythepolicyor

standardstheythemselvesestablish.ThismandatediffersfromtheSupreme

Courtrulingwhichonlyaddressestherightsofwomenineducation.The

enactmentbyCongressstatesinrelevantpart:

NopersonintheUnitedStatesshallonthebasisofsexbe

excludedfromparticipationin,bedeniedthebenefitsof,orbe

subjectedtodiscriminationunderanyeducationprogramor

activityreceivingfederalassistance.20U.S.C.§1681etseq.

20.Alwaysfacingthevagariesofsocietybasedongender,race,andage,the

plaintiffhaspersistedinthislegislationwithfaiththatthisidealwillstand,

andtopreserveacherishedlegacyasanalumnaeoftheuniversity.The

plaintiffhasenduredwithfaiththatjusticewillprevail.

Onthebasisofthislanguagealone,thedefendantsremovedtheactiontodistrict

court.ThenoticeofremovalassertsthatPullenWalkerclaimsdiscriminatoryexpulsion

under20U.S.C.§1681(a).PullenWalkerdisputedthatcontentioninamotiontoremand,

whichshemislabeledasa“motiontoanswerdefendants’reply.”Sheexplainedthatshe
No.102150 Page3

meantforhersuittobearefilingofher2005complaint,whichraisesnofederalissue,onlya

statelawcontractclaim.Thedistrictcourtgrantedthemotioninabriefminuteorder

withoutmentioningsubjectmatterjurisdictionorgivingeffecttothesubstanceofthe

document,whichconcludeswithPullenWalker’srequestthatthedistrictcourt“grant

Remand”tothestatecourt.Inalaterdecisionthedistrictcourtaddressedthemeritsand

grantedthedefendants’motiontodismissonthebasisofresjudicata.

PullenWalkermaintainsonappealthathercasebelongsinstatecourt.Although

sheadmitstoraisingTitleIXclaimsinprevioussuits,sheinsiststhatthisactioninvolvesno

federalquestion,andissimplyarefilingofher2005breachofcontractclaim,which,she

notes,wasdeemedbyafederalcourttosoundonlyinstatelaw.

Congressauthorizestheremovalofanycivilactionbroughtinstatecourtoverwhich

federalcourtshaveoriginaljurisdiction.See28U.S.C.§1441(a);Hukicv.AuroraLoanServ.,

588F.3d420,427(7thCir.2009).Whentheassertedbasisofremovalisafederalquestion,

28U.S.C.§1331,thecomplaintmustestablishthatfederallawcreatesarighttorelieforthat

arighttoreliefturnsontheresolutionofafederalquestion.SeeFranchiseTaxBd.v.Constr.

LaborersVacationTrust,463U.S.1,1011(1983);Hartv.WalMartStores,Inc., Assoc.Health

andWelfarePlan,360F.3d674,678(7thCir.2004).Thefederalgroundassertedtoestablish

jurisdictionmustbemorethanincidentaltoastatelawclaim,seeTheFairv.KohlerDie&

SpecialtyCo.,228U.S.22,25(1913);Johnsonv.Orr,551F.3d564,570(7thCir.2008);Williams

v.AztarIndianaGamingCorp.,351F.3d294,298(7thCir.2003),andtheincantationofa

federalstatutewillnotautomaticallytriggerfederaljurisdiction,seeHoweryv.AllstateIns.

Co.,243F.3d912,91718(5thCir.2001);Rains v.CriterionSys.,Inc.,80F.3d339,34344(9th

Cir.1996).

TheremovalofPullenWalker’scomplaintwasimproper,andthedistrictcourterred

innotremandingthelawsuittostatecourt.Areasonablereadingofthecomplaintconfirms

thatthisisacontractdisputewithnobasisinfederallaw.Thecomplaintisdevoted

exclusivelytothefactualdetailssurroundingtheallegedbreach:themanufactured

violationsoftheconductcode,theshaminvestigation,thearbitraryexpulsion.Thebreach

ofcontractclaimneitherincorporatesanelementoffederallawnorturnsontheresolution

ofafederalquestion.ThementionofTitleIXisfleeting,vague,anduntetheredfromfacts

thatcouldsupportafindingofdiscrimination.Atmostthereferenceisanappealtopublic

policyprinciplesembodiedbythestatute,butthatisnotthesameasinvokingtheprovision

asarighttorelief.SeeRains,80F.3dat34344(explainingthatcomplaintdrawingon

federalstatuteasasourceofpublicpolicydidnotraisefederalquestion).

HadPullenWalkerraisedafederalissue,hercomplaintpresumablywouldhave

borecloserresemblancetohertwopreviousTitleIXclaims,inwhichthefederalquestion
No.102150 Page4

wasconspicuousandwellpleaded.Forinstance,herfifthsuit,afivecountcomplaintfiled

infederalcourtwiththehelpofcounsel,assertsearlyonthatthesuitseeksreliefunderTitle

IXfordiscriminatoryexpulsion,andidentifiesasoneofthecounts“violationofTitleIX.”

Complaintat15,PullenWalkerv.RooseveltUniv., 2006WL1843364(N.D.Ill.June28,2006).

Likewisewithhersixthsuit,aproseactionfiledinfederalcourt,whichassertsthat“the

federalquestionarisesinthiscaseagainstdiscriminationbyRooseveltUniversity,”and

goesonnotonlytociteTitleIX,buttoallegefactssupportingaviolationofthestatute,

specifically“discriminationbasedonsexjustifiedbymanufacturingafalse...sexist

charge.”Complaintat2,PullenWalkerv.RooseveltUniv.,No.08C2299,(N.D.Ill.May8,

2008).Contrastthecomplaintinthiscase,whichfocusesexclusivelyonhercontractual

relationshipwiththeuniversity,whichcontainsonlyapassingreferencetoTitleIX,and

whichfailstodrawanexusbetweenthefederalstatuteandanallegationofdiscrimination.

WeVACATEthejudgmentofthedistrictcourtandREMANDwithinstructionsthat

thecaseberemandedtostatecourt.