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

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

34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 4, 2008*

Decided December 5, 2008

Before

     FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐2695

WEI ZHOU,

           Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of

Wisconsin.

No. 07‐C‐958

Rudolph T. Randa,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Wei Zhou got into a dispute with Marquette University over whether he received

high enough marks on an exam to remain in a Ph.D. program.  He sued the university in

federal court claiming breach of contract.  The district court concluded that it lacked subject‐

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐2695 Page 2

matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case.  We agree that the district court did not have

jurisdiction over the dispute and so properly dismissed it.

Zhou was a candidate for a Ph.D. in Math.  To complete the program, candidates

must pass a three‐part preliminary exam, but the university gives them two chances to take

the test.  The first time around, Zhou sat for two parts of the exam but passed only one.  He

alleges that a faculty member then told him that he would receive a passing grade if, on his

next attempt, he could do “a little bit” more or completely “finish three or four” problems.

On the second try Zhou failed both parts that he attempted (including the part that he failed

the first time).  Afterward, the university told him he no longer could pursue a Ph.D. but

could work towards a Master’s degree instead.  In September 2004 Zhou and the university

agreed to this arrangement in writing.  

Three years later, though, Zhou sued in federal court.  He claims that Marquette

breached what he says was an oral contract to give him a passing grade if he answered three

or four questions on the second test.  The university, he adds, “forced” him to agree to give

up on his Ph.D. in favor of a Master’s degree, which he says violated his “human right, civil

right and freedom of expression.”  Zhou requested reinstatement to the Ph.D. program or

the ability to re‐take the exam and “about $30,000” for each year since he was kicked out of

the program.

The district court agreed with the university that this lawsuit does not belong in

federal court.  So do we.  Zhou claims  that the university breached an oral contract and

somehow fraudulently induced him to enter into a written contract.  Contract disputes

among private parties are quintessential state‐law claims.  See Taake v. County of Monroe, 530

F.3d 538, 542 (7th Cir. 2008); City of Chi. v. Comcast Cable Holdings, L.L.C., 384 F.3d 901, 904

(7th Cir. 2004).  And though in his complaint Zhou alludes to violations of his civil rights

including his right to freedom of expression, his feeble one‐line reference falls far short of

what is required to state a federal claim.  See Greater Chi. Combine & Center, Inc. v. City of

Chi., 431 F.3d 1065, 1069 (7th Cir. 2005); Oak Park Trust & Sav. Bank v. Therkildsen, 209 F.3d

648, 651 (7th Cir. 2000); Turner/Ozanne v. Hyman/Power, 111 F.3d 1312, 1317 (7th Cir. 1997);

Gammon v. GC Servs. L.P., 27 F.3d 1254, 1256 (7th Cir. 1994).  As Zhou makes clear in his

complaint and his brief on appeal, his gripe relates to contracts that he allegedly entered

into with the university.  His vague allusions to civil liberties cannot transform these state‐

law claims into a federal question.

With respect to the diversity jurisdiction, federal courts may not exercise jurisdiction

on this basis when both the plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of the same state.  See 28

U.S.C. § 1332(a); Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n v. Am. Express Co., 467 F.3d 634, 638 (7th Cir.
No. 08‐2695 Page 3

2006); Andrews v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 447 F.3d 510, 514 (7th Cir. 2006).   In the

district court Zhou alleged that he is a “resident of Sichuan Province, P.R. China,” though

he provided a Milwaukee, Wisconsin, address.   But he did not identify his citizenship or

immigration status.  These omissions are important because federal courts have diversity

jurisdiction over disputes among “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign

state,” but permanent‐resident aliens are considered citizens both of the state where they are

domiciled and their home countries.  28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2); see Extra Equipamentos E

Exportação Ltda. v. Case Corp., 541 F.3d 719, 721 (7th Cir. 2008); Intec USA, LLC v. Engle, 467

F.3d 1038, 1043 (7th Cir. 2006).  Presented with this limited information, the district court

found that Zhou is a citizen of Wisconsin, and so lacked diversity with Marquette (which is

incorporated and located in Wisconsin).  Zhou does not dispute these findings.  Instead, in

his brief he insists incorrectly that it was the district court’s burden to prove that he and

Marquette are not diverse.  But it is up to the plaintiff who files in federal court to plead this

basis for jurisdiction and establish diversity of citizenship, see Craig v. Ontario Corp., Nos. 06‐

4409, 08‐1013, 2008 WL 4149718, at *3 (7th Cir. Sept. 10, 2008); Hart v. FedEx Ground Package

Sys., Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 679 (7th Cir. 2006), and Zhou has not done that here.

AFFIRMED.