Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20430 Su m m ar yC al endar

F ENG HUI FAN , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. V IC K I B R E W E R , Pri nci palD es i gnat ed St udentO f f i c er , U niver sit y o f

Texas M e d i c a lBr a nc h; U N I VER SI TY OF TEXAS M ED I CAL BRA N CH GRA DU ATE SCH O O L; D AV I D CA LLE N D AR , D o c t o r , U nive r s i t y o f Te xa s M e di c alBr anc h, P resi den t ; C A R Y C O O P E R , D oct or, U n iversi t y of T exas M edi cal B ran ch G r aduat e Sc hoolD ean; D O R I A N C O PP E N H AV E R , D oc t or , U niver sit y o f Texas M e di c alBr anc h Gra dua t e Sc ho o lAss o c i at e D e an , D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C V

- 3524

B e fo r e J O L L Y , W IE N E R , a n dE L R O D , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * FenghuiFan, w ho i s ana t ive o f Chi na, e nt e r e d t he U ni t ed S t at e s o n a st u dentvi saand bec am e aPh

. D

. s t udentatt he U niver sit y o f Texas M edi c al B ran ch (U T M B )

. Fa n w as academ i cal l y di sm i ssed af t er he rec eived United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 5, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-20430 Document: 00511101823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2010N o. 09- 20430

2 uns at i s fac t o r y gr ad e s i n t w o co ur s e s . Vi c kiB r e w e r , w ho m Fan i de nt i f i e s a s t he Pri nci palD es i gnat ed St udentO f f i c er ( PD SO ) at t he U niver sit y of Texas M edi c al Bra nc h, then m ade a n e nt r y i n t he da t ab as e o f t he St ude ntExc hang e a nd V i si t ors Inf

orm ati on Sy st em ( S E V IS) ref l ect i n g F an ’ s cha n ged academ i c s t atus. Fan w as subs equent l y t aken i nt o c ust ody by i m m i gr at i on of f i c i al s an d w as pl aced i n rem oval proceedi n gs. Fan t hen f

i l ed a c ivi l r i ght s c om pl ai ntagai nstB r ew ers ee ki ng i nj unct ive
r e lie f in th e fo r m o f c h a n g e s to h is g r a d e s , re v o c a tio n o f h is a c a d e m ic d is m is s a l,
an d u pd ates t o hi s SE V IS recor d t o ref l ect t h at h e w as st i l l a st u den t
. F an al so dem an ded t h at he be aw a rd e d $50 0, 000 i n com pen sator y da m ages f or t e r mi n a t i o n o f

h i s s t u d yt o wa r daP h

. D. Th e di st r i c tc our tdi sm i sse d t he ac t i on. I tdet er m i ned t hatB r ew erhad b ee n su ed i n h er offi ci a lcap a ci ty a n dtha t sh e w a s en ti tl ed to E l ev en th A me n d me n ti mmu n i t y o n F a n ’ s c l a i ms f o r mo n e t a r y d a ma g e s a n do n h i s c l a i ms fo rre tr o s p e c tiv e inju n c tiv e re lie f. As t o Fan’ s o t he rfe de rallaw cl ai m s , t he di st ri ct co u rt d e term i n ed that Fa n ha d fai l ed to st ate a c l ai m on w h i ch rel i ef coul d be gran t ed. Th e di st ri ct court al so den i ed F an ’ s m ot i on t o add defen da n t s. Fan no w a ppe al s t he di s m i s s alof hi s c l ai m s a ga i ns tBr e w e r . Gi vi ng l ibe r alc o ns t r i c t i o n t o F an’ s pr o se br i e f, w e al s o und e r s t andhi m t o a ppe alt he den i al of h i s m ot i on t o add defen da n t s, w h i ch the di st ri ctcourti m pl i ci t l y t reat ed
a s a m oti on to am en dthe com p l a i n t. Ad is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f a m o tio n to d is m is s fo rfa il u r e t o s t a te acla im
u n d e rF e d

. R

. C iv . P

. 1 2 (b ) ( 6 ) i s s u bj e c tt o d e n o v o r e v i e w. I n r eKat r i na Cana l B reaches Lit iga t i on , 49 5 F

. 3 d19 1 , 20 5 ( 5 thC i r. 20 0 7 ). Aplain ti ff fail s to state
a cl a i m w h en the com p l a i n t do es n ot c o n tain “‘ en ou gh fa cts to state a claim to reli ef th a t i s p l a u sibl e on i ts fa ce.’” I d. ( quot i ng B ell A tl. Co rp . v . Tw o m b ly , 550 U

. S

. 54 4 , 57 0 ( 2 0 0 7 ))

. “ F a ctu a la lle g a ti on s m u st be en ou gh to raise a righ t t o
r e lie f a b o v e th e s p e c u la tiv e le v e l, o n th e a s s u m p tio n th a t a ll th e a lle g a tio n s in th e com p l a i n t are tru e (eve n i f d ou b tf u l in fac t)

. ” Tw o m b ly , 550 U

. S. at555 Case: 09-20430 Document: 00511101823 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2010N o. 09- 20430

3 ( quo t at i o n m ar ks , c i t at i o ns , and f o o t no t e o m i t t e d)

. A d i s t r i c t c o ur tdoes not ab use i t s di s c r e t i o n i n de nyi ng l e av e t o a m e nd if a l l o w i ng am e ndm e nto f t he
c o m p la in t w o u ldb e fu tile

. Briggs v . Mi s s i s s i ppi , 331 F

. 3d 499 , 50 8 (5t h C i r. 2003)

. Thi s c our tdet er m i n es f ut i l i t y by appl yi ng “ t he s am e s t andard o f l egal
su ff i ci en cyas a p p l i es u n d er R u l e 1 2 (b)( 6 ). ” S tr ip lingv . J o r d a n Pr o d u c tio n Co ., LLC , 2 3 4 F .3d 8 6 3 , 8 7 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (q u o ta tion m a rk s an d cita tion s o m itted ). Fan a r gue s t hat , b e c aus e U TM B r e c e ive d f e de r alf u n di ng, no ne o f

t he defenda n t s has i m m u n i t y u n der t h e E lev e n t h A m en dm en t
. Ast ate i s not i m m une unde r t he El e ve nt h Am e ndm e nt f r o m s ui t i n fe de r al c o urtfor a vi o l a t i o n o f, “ t i t l e VI o f t h e Civ i l Ri g h t s Ac t o f 1 9 6 4 , o r t h e p r o v i s i o ns o f a ny ot herFeder als t at ut e pr ohibi t i ng d i scri m i nat i on by r ec i pi ent s of Feder al f i nanci alas si st ance . ” 42 U

. S. C

. § 2000d- 7( a) ( 1)

. H ow eve r , Fan, w ho c l ai m s t hat h e wa s d i s c r i mi n a t e da g a i n s to n a c c o u n to f h i s n a t i o n a lo r i g i n , h a s n o ts h o wn t h at he ha s s t ated a cl ai m on w h i ch rel i ef coul d be gran t ed u n d e r T itl e V I or
u n d e rV II o f th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4
. S ee Tw o m b ly , 55 0 U

. S. at5 55
. To t he extent t h at Fa n argu es t h at he i s enti t led to r e l i ef un der t h e E qu alP rot ect i on Cl aus e fo rdi s c r i m i nat i o n b as e d o n hi s na t i o nalo r i gi n, hi s c l ai m s fai lund e rt he
s a m e a n a ly s is a p p lic a b le to h is T itle V II cla im

. S ee L au d erdalev. T ex. D ep’ tof C r i m i nalJust i c e, I

nst i t ut i onalD i v. , 5 1 2 F .3d 1 5 7 , 1 6 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). F a n ’ s cl ai m s agai n stB rew er are based on h er acti on s i n u pd ati n g t h e SE V IS da t aba se to refl ect h i s ac a d em i c d i sm i ssa l

. B eca u se B rew er w a s m ere l y fulf i l l i n g h er d u ty
u n d e rfe d e r a l la w to u p d a te th e S E V IS d a ta b a s e , see 8 C .F .R

. § 2 1 4 .3(g)(1)(v i), F an ’ s c l ai m f

or vi ol ati on of

t h e “ B order Secu ri t y A ct” fai l s t o st ate a cl ai m on
w h ic h re lie f m a yb e g r a n te d ; m o r e o v e r , th e c la im is le g a llyfr iv o lo u s b e c a u s e it is b a s e do n a n in d is p u ta b lym e r itle s s le g a l th e o r y . S ee Ne i tzk ev . Wi l l i a ms , 490 U

. S

. 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 ( 1 9 8 9 )

. T o t h e e x t e n tt h a tF a n a s s e r t s o t h e rfe d e r a ll a w c l a i ms agai nstB r ew er , hi s c onc l uso r y al l egat i ons fai l t o st at e ac l ai m on w hi c h re l i ef an b e g r a n te d

. S ee Tw o m b ly , 550 U

. S. at555. Case: 09-20430 Document: 00511101823 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2010N o. 09- 20430

4 F in a lly , F a n a r g u e s th a t h is u n s a tis fa c to r y g r a d e s w e r e n o t b a s e d o n h is acad em i c perf

orm an ce and achi evem en t s. H e argu es th at t h e di st ri ctcourt
e r r e din d i s m is s in gh is d u e p r o c e s s ch a lle n g e s to h is g r a d e s a n dh is a c a d e m ic di sm i ss al , and he c l ai m s t hathi s r i ght s t o “f r ee as so c i at i on and f r ee as se m bl y” unde rt he Fi r s tAm e ndm e ntw e r e v i o l at e d. F a n ’ s co m p la in t s h o w s t h a t h e re c e iv e dh e a r in g s a t w h ic h h e a p p e a le dh is g r a d e s a n dth a t h e w a s a ls o a ffo r d e dah e a r in gr e g a r d in gh is a c a d e m ic d ism iss a l. T h e p ro ce d u re s a ffor d e dF a n w e re m o re th a n su ffi cie n t to sa tisfy
a p p lic a b le d u e p r o c e s s s ta n d a r d s . S ee B oardof C u rat ors of

t h e Un i v. of

Mi ssouri
v . Ho ro w itz , 4 3 5 U .S . 7 8 , 8 5 -8 6 (1 9 7 8 ); D av i s v. Mann , 88 2 F

. 2 d96 7 , 97 3 -75 ( 5 th C i r. 198 9)

. Fa n ha s not show n err or i n t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof hi s Fir st A m e n d m e n t c la im

. S ee R ege nt s of Uni vers i ty of

Mi c higa n v . Ew i ng , 4 74 U

. S. 2 1 4 , 2 2 6 (19 8 5 ). T h e j u dg m e n t o f

t h e di st ri ctcourti s af f i rm ed. B rew er’ s m ot i on f or
s u m m a r y a ffir m a n c e a n d to s ta yth e b r ie fin gd e a d lin e s is d e n ie d

. S ee S ou t h ern Far m Bur e au Cas

. I ns . Co. v . Mo rga n , 3 3 9 F

. 2 d 7 5 5 , 7 5 6 (5th C i r. 1 9 6 4 ). A ll
o t he ro ut s t and i ng m o t i o ns a r e a l s o de ni e d. AFFI RM ED ; M OTI ON FOR SUM M ARY AFFI RM AN CE D EN I ED ; ALL OT HER OUT S T AND I NG MOT I ONS DE NI ED

. Case: 09-20430 Document: 00511101823 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/05/2010