1 – ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

BRANDON AUSTIN,

 

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON; SANDY Case No. 6:15-cv-02257-MC (Lead Case)

WEINTRAUB; CHICORA MARTIN; Case No. 6:16-cv-00647-MC (Member Case)

ROBIN HOLMES; and MICHAEL R.

GOTTFREDSON, all in their individual

capacities only, ORDER RE:

 MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Defendants.

________________________________

DOMINIC ARTIS and DAMYEAN

DOTSON,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON; SANDY 

WEINTRAUB; CHICORA MARTIN;

ROBIN HOLMES; and MICHAEL R.

GOTTFREDSON,

Defendants.

________________________________

MCSHANE, Judge: 

The matter before the court is plaintiff Dominic Artis’ motion for the court to reconsider 

its order dismissing plaintiff’s claims. Artis v. Uni. of Oregon, D. Or. 16-cv-647-MC, ECF No. 

40; ECF No. 46. Plaintiff Brandon Austin joins in the motion for reconsideration. D. Or. 15-cvCase 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 55 Filed 06/07/17 Page 1 of 4
2 – ORDER 

2257, Pl.’s Br., ECF No. 36.1 Defendants oppose. Because the motion to reconsider fails to elicit 

law or facts warranting reconsideration, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On September 8, 2016, the court dismissed this action on defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) 

Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 34. Plaintiffs, in order to state sufficient factual matter to constitute 

a due process claim upon which relief can be granted case, were required to identify a “clearly 

established” interest that was denied or abridged by defendants. See United States v. GuillenCervantes, 748 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs’ complaints relied on their characterization 

that their awarded scholarships and college education were property interesst Pl.’s Br., ECF No. 

By failing to provide them with adequate due process, plaintiffs claim that the defendants denied 

them their constitutionally protected right to their education.

This court found that “there is no Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit, or Oregon District Court 

case that, at the time of the events giving rise to this case, clearly establishes the property rights 

Plaintiffs assert” nor was there “any apposite statute establishing the same.” Order, 9, ECF No. 

34. Because the four individually named defendants did not violate a clearly established 

constitutional right, the court found they enjoyed qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ due process 

claims. The claims were dismissed with prejudice. Order, 10.

STANDARD

A motion for reconsideration must demonstrate some reason the court should reconsider

its decision. The motion must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the 

court to reverse its prior decision. The primary grounds warranting reconsideration include: 1) an 

intervening change in controlling law; 2) the availability of newly discovered evidence; and 3) 

the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah 

 1 Unless stated otherwise, citations to the docket refer to the lead case, D. Or. 6:15-cv-2257-MC.

Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 55 Filed 06/07/17 Page 2 of 4
3 – ORDER 

County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236, 

114 S. Ct. 2742 (1994); All Hawaii Tours Corp. v. Polynesian Cultural Ctr., 116 F.R.D. 645, 

648 (D.Haw.1987), rev'd in part on other grounds, 855 F.2d 860 (9th Cir.1988). While there 

might be additional circumstances justifying reconsideration, such circumstances would be 

highly unusual. School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263.

DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiffs’ Arguments

In their motion to reconsider, plaintiffs do not argue that there was an intervening change 

in controlling law or that there is newly discovered evidence. Rather, plaintiffs ask this court to 

reconsider its analysis of Stretten v. Wadsworth Veterans Hosp., 538 F.2d 361 (9th Cir. 1976) as 

instructive on the facts in this case. Pl.’s Br. 4-7, ECF No. 36; Order, 10, ECF No. 34. This court 

found that Stretten can only “arguably” be interpreted to confer a right similar to that at issue, 

but falls short of the “beyond debate” standard articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Al-Kidd. 

See, infra. Order, 10. The facts in Stretten are sufficiently distinct from the ones here, namely, 

the plaintiff in Stretten was a medical resident appointed to a four-year position but terminated 

allegedly without process after only one. Here, Plaintiffs are unpaid college student athletes who 

were denied the renewal on the subsequent term of their otherwise renewable one-year

scholarships, from which they benefited the full promised year.

In support of their motions to reconsider, Plaintiffs have included pages one and two of 

the scholarships. Pl.’s Br. Ex A, ECF No. 36. This evidence is not newly-offered, let alone newly 

discovered. The court, as discussed in its Opinion & Order, had considered the terms of the 

scholarships, and found it distinguishable from the medical resident’s salaried income in Stretten.

By its plain language the scholarship letters award only the first three consecutive quarters:

Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 55 Filed 06/07/17 Page 3 of 4
4 – ORDER 

“If you enroll, you will receive this assistance for three (3) consecutive quarter(s), 

commencing with the first day of classes Fall quarter of the 2012-13 academic 

year . . .”

B. Qualified Immunity

Whether an arguable or theoretical property interest existed or not was not determinative 

of the Court’s prior ruling. Plaintiff had a higher standard to meet; specifically, to show the 

existence of a “clearly established” right existing at the time of the challenged conduct, a right 

sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing 

violates that right. Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (quoting 

Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S. Ct. 3034 (1987) (internal bracketing and 

quotations omitted). Because Plaintiffs could not establish the existence of a “clearly 

established” right, the four individual defendants were found to be entitled to qualified immunity 

from the due process claims. Plaintiffs, then and now, have not brought forward any case law or 

statutory precedent to place their alleged right “beyond debate.” Id. at 741. At most, Stretten

invites a discussion on theoretical rights. 

CONCLUSION

Because no grounds exist for the Court to reconsider its prior conclusion, Plaintiff Artis’ 

Motion to reconsider, Artis v. Uni. of Oregon, D. Or. 16-cv-647-MC, ECF No. 40; ECF No. 46, 

is DENIED, and Plaintiff Austin’s joined Motion for reconsideration, Austin v. Uni. of Oregon, 

D. Or. 16-cv-2257-MC, ECF No. 36, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 7th day of June, 2017

 s/Michael J. McShane 

Michael McShane

 United States District Judge

Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 55 Filed 06/07/17 Page 4 of 4