Alexander Edionwe v. Guy Bailey
860 F.3d 287
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Edionwe, a tenured UTPA professor in Dietetics, had a continuing employment interest at UTPA; UTB and UTPA were abolished effective Aug. 31, 2015 to form UTRGV; the board created Phase I (tenured/tenure-track from abolished universities) and Phase II (general) hiring processes; Edionwe missed Phase I deadline due to a short overseas trip and later applied in Phase II; Edionwe was not hired and his tenure at UTPA ended; he sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988 and sought declaratory relief; district court granted judgment on the pleadings and denied leave to amend/reconsider; appellate review followed.
- phase I closed Aug. 11–Sept. 8, 2014; phase II opened Nov. 4, 2014; Edionwe returned Aug. 8, 2014 and failed to timely apply; the hiring plan required multiple criteria, including timely submission, but did not guarantee employment.
- UTRGV policy stated the president would recommend tenure for eligible applicants; FAQ stated hiring criteria but did not create a guaranteed job right; Edionwe alleged statements by administrators about merging/automatic transition, but the court considered those insufficient to create a property interest.
- Court held Edionwe had no constitutionally protected property interest in UTRGV/UT System employment; only the UTPA tenure was protected; procedural due process was satisfied via legislative process; substantive due process failed; amended-pleading leave was properly denied; declaratory relief claims were dismissed.
- Final posture: affirm district court on Rule 12(c) judgment, deny leave to amend, deny Rule 59(e) relief, and dismiss declaratory judgment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Property interest in employment | Edionwe claimed a property right to UTRGV/UT System employment via tenure and legislative consolidation. | Tenure is institution-specific; consolidation did not create a guaranteed entitlement. | No constitutionally protected property interest outside UTPA tenure. |
| Procedural due process | Legislative extinction of his job required due process beyond general legislative process. | Legislature extinguishing a class of interests provides due process. | Procedural due process satisfied; no due process violation. |
| Substantive due process | Termination lacked rational basis and professional judgment due to transition rules. | Legislative action supported by rational basis; not arbitrary. | No substantive due process violation. |
| Leave to amend / Rule 59(e) | Should be allowed to amend to cure deficiencies. | Amendment would be futile; inadequately plead protected property interest. | District court did not abuse its discretion; amendment denied. |
| Declaratory judgment claim | Dismissed; appellate review declined jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Newman v. Kock, 274 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008) (tenured faculty has protectable interest in employment in some contexts, but not across UT components)
- Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972) (tenured status creates property interest; due process depends on entitlement)
- Roth v. Bd. of Regents, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (entitlement must be legitimate and defined by state law)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be beyond mere recitals)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 445 (1982) (procedural due process in legislative context)
- Staheli v. Univ. of Miss., 854 F.2d 121 (5th Cir. 1988) (administrative statements insufficient to create protected interest)
- Gentilello v. Rege, 627 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2010) (leave to amend—need to show cure of deficiencies)
- Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (factors for denying Rule 59(e) relief)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (five-factor test for denial of leave to amend)