Bhattacharya v. Arizona State University
627 F. App'x 636
9th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff Sourav Sam Bhattacharya sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging harms arising from an alleged agreement between Arizona State University (ASU) and the Department of Justice.
- Claims included procedural due process, Takings Clause, breach of contract (as a purported third-party beneficiary), Title VI national-origin discrimination, and defamation.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and as time-barred for certain claims; Bhattacharya appealed pro se.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and considered whether Bhattacharya pleaded sufficient factual allegations to state plausible claims and whether the defamation claim was time-barred.
- The court also addressed whether the district court retained jurisdiction to consider a reconsideration motion after Bhattacharya filed a notice of appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Due Process claim pleaded a deprivation of life, liberty, or property | Bhattacharya alleged harm from the ASU–DOJ agreement and sought relief under Due Process | No protected life/liberty/property interest alleged; facts inadequate | Dismissed for failure to plead a plausible due process claim |
| Whether Takings Clause claim stated a protected property interest | Bhattacharya asserted government action effectively took his property interests | No plausible property interest alleged | Dismissed for failure to allege constitutionally protected property interest |
| Whether breach of contract claim as third-party beneficiary was viable | Bhattacharya claimed he was an intended third-party beneficiary of ASU–DOJ agreement | Complaint lacked plausible facts showing third-party beneficiary status; federal common law inapplicable | Dismissed for failure to plead third-party beneficiary status |
| Whether Title VI national-origin discrimination claim was sufficiently pleaded | Bhattacharya alleged discrimination by the Arizona Board of Regents | Complaint failed to allege plausible facts showing discrimination on basis of national origin | Dismissed; denial of leave to amend not an abuse of discretion (amendment would be futile) |
| Whether defamation claim was time-barred | Bhattacharya contended claim was timely or tolled | Claim accrued >1 year before filing; Arizona statute of limitations for actions against public entities applies; no tolling | Dismissed as barred by statute of limitations |
| Whether district court could rule on reconsideration after appeal | Bhattacharya filed motion for reconsideration after judgment | Filing of notice of appeal divested district court of jurisdiction | District court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (Due Process claim requires deprivation of life, liberty, or property)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead sufficient factual matter to be facially plausible)
- Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals and statute-of-limitations dismissals)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se complaints are liberally construed but must allege plausible claims)
- Ward v. Ryan, 623 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 2010) (elements of a Takings Clause claim include a constitutionally protected property interest)
- Sherman v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 201 Ariz. 564, 38 P.3d 1229 (Ct. App. 2002) (requirements for recovery as a third-party contract beneficiary under Arizona law)
- Fobbs v. Holy Cross Health Sys. Corp., 29 F.3d 1439 (9th Cir. 1994) (elements for stating a Title VI discrimination claim)
- Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1986) (notice of appeal divests district court of jurisdiction)