Opinion ID: 539862
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims Against the University of Louisville

Text: 34 It is well established that a suit in federal court by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 337, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 1143, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979); see also Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1355, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). Only where Congress has explicitly abrogated a state's immunity to suit on the face of a statute, see Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 3147, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985), or where the state itself has consented to suit, see Edelman, 415 U.S. at 673, 94 S.Ct. at 1360, will a federal court have jurisdiction over a state defendant. 35 In Martin v. University of Louisville, 541 F.2d at 1174-77, this court explicitly determined that suits for money damages against the University of Louisville or its officers acting in their official capacities were barred by the eleventh amendment. The plaintiff does not contest the fact that Congress did not abrogate state sovereign immunity to suit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. See Quern, 440 U.S. at 341, 99 S.Ct. at 1145. He maintains, however, that Kentucky has consented to such suits against the University through a state statute providing for the purchase of insurance for University officials. 36 In Dunlap v. University of Kentucky Student Health, 716 S.W.2d 219, 220 (Ky.1986), the Kentucky Supreme Court found that a Kentucky statute providing for the establishment of a special fund to assure itself that health care malpractice claims or judgments against itself, or its agents will be satisfied, and providing that, [s]uch purpose is hereby declared to be a public purpose for which public funds may be expended, Ky.Rev.Stat. Sec. 164.939, effected a limited waiver of the state's sovereign immunity to suits for recovery from the fund. Plaintiff claims that a similar waiver has been effected with regard to suits against University personnel by Ky.Rev.Stat. Sec. 164.2871. Plaintiff quotes the following language from that statute in his brief on appeal: 37 The governing board of each state institution of higher education [is] authorized to purchase liability insurance for the protection of the individual members of the governing board, faculty, and staff of such institutions from liability for acts [and] omissions committed in the course and scope of the individual's employment or service. Each institution may purchase the type and amount of liability coverage deemed to best serve the interest of such institution. 38 (Appellant's Brief at 45) (emphasis added). What plaintiff fails to quote is the following 1988 amendment to the statute: 39 [T]he purchase of liability insurance for members of governing boards, faculty and staff of institutions of higher education in this state shall not be construed to be a waiver of sovereign immunity or any other immunity or privilege. 40 Ky.Rev.Stat. Sec. 164.2871(3) (emphasis supplied). This statute is hardly what the Supreme Court envisioned when it wrote we will find waiver only where stated 'by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction.'  Edelman, 415 U.S. at 673, 94 S.Ct. at 1361 (quoting Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U.S. 151, 171, 29 S.Ct. 458, 464, 53 L.Ed. 742 (1909)). Needless to say, we find plaintiff's argument that Kentucky has consented to this suit unconvincing. 41 Because the eleventh amendment is an explicit limitation on federal judicial power, Edelman, 415 U.S. at 678, 94 S.Ct. at 1363 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treas. of Indiana, 323 U.S 459, 467, 65 S.Ct. 347, 352, 89 L.Ed. 389 (1945)), a federal court is without jurisdiction to hear a claim against an unconsenting state absent congressional abrogation. See Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 2273, 2277, 105 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989); Atascadero, 473 U.S. at 242, 105 S.Ct. at 3147. All plaintiff's claims against the University of Louisville and its officers acting in their official capacities were, therefore, properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S 781, 782, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 3058, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978) (per curiam) (ordering dismissal of state defendant sued under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 because the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining suits by private parties against States and their agencies). Id. at 781, 98 S.Ct. at 3057. 1 B. Federal Law Claims Against Dickstein and Kmetz In Their Individual Capacities 42 Cowan alleges that Dickstein and Kmetz violated his federal constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, and hence that they are liable for damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Plaintiff claims that he was deprived of a liberty interest in his reputation when Dickstein and Kmetz disclosed the letter written by Franks to the SAC. He then asserts that he was deprived of a property interest in his continuing enrollment in medical school. (Appellant's Brief at 35). 43 Due process concerns are clearly not implicated in Dickstein's and Kmetz's actions with regard to the letter from Franks. In the case of Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976), the Supreme Court explained that a plaintiff claiming to have suffered damage to his reputation due to the actions of a state official had failed to state a claim for deprivation of liberty within the meaning of the due process clause. The Court set forth its decision in the following passage which we find dispositive of Cowan's claim here: 44 Kentucky law does not extend to respondent any legal guarantee of present enjoyment of reputation which has been altered as a result of petitioners' actions. Rather his interest in reputation is simply one of a number which the state may protect against injury by virtue of its tort law, providing a forum for vindication of those interests by means of damages actions. And any harm or injury to that interest, even where as here inflicted by an officer of the State, does not result in a deprivation of any liberty or property recognized by state or federal law, nor has it worked any change of respondent's status as theretofore recognized under the State's laws. For these reasons we hold that the interest in reputation asserted in this case is neither liberty nor property guaranteed against state deprivation without due process of law. 45 424 U.S. at 711-12, 96 S.Ct. at 1165. 46 The gravamen of plaintiff's argument that he was deprived of property without due process is that Dickstein and Kmetz engineered his dismissal from the School of Medicine because of a personal vendetta they were carrying on against him. Cowan alleges that both defendants, together with many other agents of the University of Louisville, conspired to have him dismissed because of their own irrational fears of him, and in order to placate Dr. LeRoy who, Cowan alleges, was a rival for Noe's affections. When this plot failed, Cowan maintains, the defendants and other unnamed agents of the University of Louisville, proceeded to fake Cowan's academic failure in junior surgery. The facts surrounding plaintiff's dismissal from the School of Medicine are as we have set them out above; we find no support there for plaintiff's fanciful conspiracy theory. 47 In Rice v. Ohio Department of Transportation, 887 F.2d 716, 719 (6th Cir.1989), we declared our unwillingness to allow a plaintiff to circumvent Congress' intent that states not be sued under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983  'by a mere pleading device.'  (Quoting Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2312, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989)). In Rice, we stated that: 48 [T]he record does not suggest in any way that the defendants' actions were somehow unofficial. The capacity in which the individual defendants were in fact acting is what matters, not the capacity in which they were sued.... 49 887 F.2d at 719. In the case before us, we see no evidence whatsoever that either Dickstein or Kmetz were acting in anything other than their official capacities, and therefore are unwilling to engage in a review of the process accorded plaintiff in his dismissal from medical school. To do so would be to, in effect, entertain plaintiff's claim against the University of Louisville--a task which the eleventh amendment, and the principles of sovereign immunity it implies, removes from our jurisdiction. C. State Law Claims 50 After granting summary judgment on plaintiff's federal constitutional and statutory claims, the district court ignored plaintiff's state law claims, writing for reasons of judicial economy [the court] will not address other arguments raised by the plaintiff. We find it unclear from this statement whether the court intended that the state law claims be remanded to state court. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966). Since we are uncertain, we feel that the most appropriate resolution of this question is to remand to the district court so that the district judge can indicate whether the state claims should be remanded or kept for disposition. 51 The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. However, the case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to clarify its ruling relative to the pendent state claims.DP1AFFIRMED with state law claims previously removed to be remanded in accordance with this opinion. 52