531 F. App'x 909
10th Cir.2013Background
- Cunningham, a second-year medical student, sued UNM and the Board seeking ADA, Rehabilitation Act, §1983, and contract relief over denied disability accommodations.
- Cunningham has Irlen Syndrome and alleged that testing conditions aggravated his disability, affecting Step 1 exam performance.
- Board denied Cunningham's accommodation request in May 2009; UNM and the Board demanded extensive records and documentation before reconsideration.
- Cunningham attempted Step 1 a second time without accommodation and again failed; he faced academic deadlines and leave implications.
- The district court dismissed all federal claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over state-law contract claims; appeal followed.
- On appeal, the court held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Cunningham’s §1983 claim against UNM and ripeness-barred ADA/RA claims against the Board; UNM's ADA/RA claims were also dismissed on merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity bar | Cunningham seeks prospective relief from UNM, invoking Ex parte Young. | UNM, as a state agency, is immune regardless of relief sought; Ex parte Young does not apply. | §1983 claim against UNM dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Ex parte Young inapplicable. |
| Ripeness of ADA/RA claims against the Board | Disability and need for accommodation are currently before the court; Board denial was final enough. | Claims ripe because denial was final and could be acted upon; Board could deny or grant with full information. | Board claims not ripe; the court lacks jurisdiction over ADA/RA claims against the Board. |
| Merits of ADA/RA claims against UNM | Irlen Syndrome substantially limits learning/reading; UNM failed to accommodate. | Even assuming disability, UNM's obligations to accommodate at the Board level and program requirements are limited; UNM's actions were proper and deference due. | ADA/RA claims against UNM fail on merits; district court's dismissal affirmed. |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | State-law contract claims should proceed alongside federal claims. | Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction after federal claims are resolved. | District court correctly declined supplemental jurisdiction; state-law claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Okla. Tax Comm’n, 611 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2010) (threshold jurisdiction; facial vs. factual attack on jurisdiction)
- City of Albuquerque v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 379 F.3d 901 (10th Cir. 2004) (ripeness considerations; deference to district court on jurisdiction)
- Buchwald v. Univ. of N.M. Sch. of Med., 159 F.3d 487 (10th Cir. 1998) (Ex parte Young applicability to state agencies; limits)
- Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (Supreme Court 1977) (application of ripeness and practical consequences)
- McGuinness v. Univ. of N.M. Sch. of Med., 170 F.3d 974 (10th Cir. 1999) (educational deference and reasonable accommodations standards)
- New Mexicans for Bill Richardson v. Gonzales, 64 F.3d 1495 (10th Cir. 1995) (ripeness doctrine; concrete controversy requirement)