Brent Quade v. Arizona Board of Regents
700 F. App'x 623
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Quade, an ASU student, was charged with sexual misconduct and substance offenses; ASU suspended him for ~12 months.
- Quade requested a university hearing, arrived with counsel and a witness, and alleges he was told only he or counsel could speak and that his witness (a former ASU employee) could not testify; he left and alleges there was “no hearing.”
- The university issued a final administrative decision adopting the hearing board’s finding and informing Quade of his right to seek judicial review under Arizona’s Administrative Review Act; Quade did not appeal to state court or seek an administrative rehearing.
- Quade sued in federal court against the Arizona Board of Regents and two university officials (Mader and Castle), asserting § 1983 due process claims, Title IX, and several state-law tort claims and employment-interference claims.
- The district court dismissed: claims against the Board and its officers as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity; state-law claims against the individuals for failure to serve a statutorily required notice of claim; and federal due-process claims as precluded by the unappealed final administrative decision.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the state-law claims and the § 1983 due-process claim (res judicata/claim preclusion). A partial dissent would have vacated and remanded the due-process claim for further fact- and fairness-focused review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state-law tort claims against individual defendants were barred for failure to serve a notice of claim | Quade argued equitable estoppel excused personal service | Defendants argued Quade failed to comply with A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) and had no basis for estoppel | Dismissed: Quade failed to serve notice; equitable estoppel not raised below and, on the merits, inadequately pleaded |
| Whether the Board and its officers were immune under the Eleventh Amendment | Quade sued Board and officers; challenged dismissal but did not contest Eleventh Amendment ruling on appeal | Defendants asserted sovereign immunity for Board and state officers | Affirmed: Eleventh Amendment bars claims against the Board and its officers (not contested on appeal) |
| Whether the unappealed final administrative decision precludes Quade’s § 1983 procedural-due-process claim | Quade argued the university hearing was constitutionally deficient (no hearing, denied counsel and witnesses) and thus federal claims should proceed | Defendants argued the administrative decision is final and, given state judicial-review availability, bars relitigation (res judicata/collateral estoppel) | Affirmed (majority): Administrative decision has preclusive effect under Arizona law because an adequate opportunity for state-court review existed and Quade did not appeal |
| Whether the federal court erred by applying preclusion without independently assessing fairness of the administrative proceedings | Quade (in dissent) argued the court should independently assess whether Utah Construction fairness factors were met before preclusion | Defendants argued availability of state review and administrative procedures sufficed; failure to appeal foreclosed federal relitigation | Dissent would vacate/remand: court should have first considered whether the administrative forum provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate before applying preclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (setting fairness factors for giving preclusive effect to administrative adjudications)
- Miller v. County of Santa Cruz, 39 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 1994) (discussing preclusive effect of state administrative decisions when Utah Construction factors satisfied)
- Olson v. Morris, 188 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 1999) (state administrative decision precludes federal § 1983 claims where state review was available and fairness requirements met)
- Misischia v. Pirie, 60 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 1995) (adequate opportunity to litigate used to assess preclusive effect)
- Plaine v. McCabe, 797 F.2d 713 (9th Cir. 1986) (federal courts must independently review adequacy of state administrative proceedings before giving preclusive effect)
- Falcon ex rel. Sandoval v. Maricopa County, 213 Ariz. 525 (Arizona 2006) (strict enforcement of Arizona’s notice-of-claim personal-service requirement)
- Patsy v. Bd. of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 (recognizing availability of § 1983 suits against state actors and discussing exhaustion principles)