Jensen v. Brown
3:22-cv-00045
| D. Nev. | Sep 27, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Lars Jensen is a tenured TMCC math professor who circulated a critical handout at a January 2020 “Math Summit” about co‑requisite placement and alleged lowering of curricular standards and deterioration of shared governance.
- TMCC administrators (Ellsworth, Flesher, Brown, Hilgerson, Murgolo) issued a reprimand for "insubordination," changed annual evaluations from recommended "Excellent" to "Unsatisfactory," and initiated a disciplinary investigation and hearing process.
- Jensen filed grievances and sued the administrators in federal court asserting: First Amendment retaliation (official and individual capacities), Nevada constitutional claims, procedural due process (against Brown, Hilgerson, Flesher), Equal Protection, and declaratory relief; he later amended his complaint.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity for official‑capacity claims, qualified immunity for individual‑capacity claims, and lack of plausible constitutional or state‑law claims. Jensen sought to amend his opposition; court denied oral argument.
- The court dismissed official‑capacity constitutional claims with prejudice under the Eleventh Amendment (no viable Ex parte Young prospective relief), granted qualified immunity to individual defendants on the federal claims, dismissed pendent state claims (without prejudice to state filing), and dismissed declaratory relief; Jensen’s motion to amend was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity for official‑capacity federal claims | Jensen sought prospective and retrospective relief (including salary adjustments and expungement) and argued Ex parte Young exception applies | TMCC/NSHE officials are state actors; requested relief is retrospective (compensatory) so Eleventh Amendment bars suit | Court: Officials immune in official capacities; Ex parte Young exception not triggered because relief sought was retrospective; official‑capacity federal claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Qualified immunity for individual‑capacity First Amendment retaliation | Jensen alleges retaliation for distributing handout and public criticism; cites Demers and general First Amendment protections for faculty | Defendants say plaintiff did not plead a clearly established right particularized to these facts; Demers does not clearly establish such a right | Court: Dismissed retaliation claim against individuals on qualified immunity grounds — Jensen failed to identify clearly established law specific to his context |
| Procedural due process against Brown, Hilgerson, Flesher | Jensen claims deprivation of property/liberty interests (avoid termination, reputation, future employment) and inadequate process during investigation/hearing | Defendants contend no protected interest was lost (Jensen was not terminated), reputational harms alone insufficient, and accused conduct (insubordination) lacks stigma required for liberty interest | Court: Dismissed due process claim with prejudice; qualified immunity applies because no plausible deprivation of a protected liberty or property interest alleged |
| Equal Protection, pendent state claims, and declaratory relief | Jensen alleges unequal evaluation and biased hearing | Defendants: Jensen fails to plead a protected class or particularized comparator; pendent state claims barred by Eleventh Amendment or should be dismissed to state court; declaratory relief depends on viable substantive claims | Court: Equal Protection claim dismissed for failure to plead class/comparator; pendent Nevada claims dismissed (official‑capacity barred; individual‑capacity dismissed under pendent jurisdiction); declaratory relief dismissed because no remaining substantive federal claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (allows prospective injunctive relief against state officials for ongoing federal‑law violations)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (state‑law claims against state officials are barred by Eleventh Amendment when they seek relief based on state law)
- Krainski v. Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2010) (NSHE and its entities are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986) (courts evaluate substance over form to determine whether relief is prospective or effectively retrospective)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (retroactive monetary relief against state actors is barred by the Eleventh Amendment)
- Demers v. Austin, 746 F.3d 402 (9th Cir. 2014) (addressed First Amendment protection for academic speech and concluded contours were not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech pursuant to official duties is not protected by the First Amendment)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state plausible claim; reject mere legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (reputational harm alone does not implicate a liberty interest under Due Process)
- Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1993) (discusses liberty interests in employment and stigma for due process protection)