891 F.3d 1147
9th Cir.2018Background
- Doe, a male UCSB student, was found responsible for sexual assault after campus disciplinary hearings and suspended; he denied the assault and sued The Regents and Assistant Dean Perkin alleging gender bias, due process violations (§ 1983), and Title IX claims.
- Doe included a California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 writ petition (administrative mandamus) in his federal pleadings to challenge the disciplinary determination and to exhaust remedies.
- The Regents moved to dismiss arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity bars the § 1094.5 claim in federal court and that failure to obtain state-court § 1094.5 review precludes Doe’s federal § 1983 and Title IX claims for lack of judicial exhaustion.
- The district court denied dismissal, concluding the § 1094.5 petition was a procedural vehicle (not a state-law claim) and that exhaustion was satisfied; it also held Eleventh Amendment did not bar the § 1983 official-capacity claim against Perkin.
- On interlocutory appeal the Ninth Circuit reversed: it held the § 1094.5 petition is a state-law claim barred by the Eleventh Amendment in federal court, and because Doe cannot obtain § 1094.5 review in federal court his federal claims are unexhausted and must be dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1094.5 writ petition in federal court is barred by Eleventh Amendment | Doe: § 1094.5 is a procedural vehicle to exhaust federal claims; not barred | Regents: § 1094.5 raises substantive state-law claims and is barred against a state instrumentality in federal court | Held: § 1094.5 is a state-law claim; Eleventh Amendment bars it in federal court; dismiss with prejudice |
| Whether Ex parte Young allows § 1094.5 against state officials in federal court | Doe: district court may construe writ as against officials so Young applies | Regents: Young does not permit federal adjudication of state-law claims against state actors | Held: Young does not save a state-law § 1094.5 claim from Eleventh Amendment bar; amendment would be futile |
| Whether failure to obtain § 1094.5 review precludes federal § 1983 and Title IX claims (judicial exhaustion/preclusion) | Doe: alleged inclusion of § 1094.5 in federal pleadings sufficed; exhaustion satisfied | Regents: because § 1094.5 is barred in federal court, Doe has not exhausted state judicial remedies and federal claims are precluded | Held: Because § 1094.5 review is required and Doe cannot obtain it in federal court, his § 1983 and Title IX claims are unexhausted and dismissed without prejudice |
| Appellate jurisdiction to review exhaustion ruling pendent to Eleventh Amendment appeal | Doe: did not contest pendent jurisdiction | Regents: pendent appellate jurisdiction appropriate because issues are intertwined | Held: Exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction because Eleventh Amendment ruling necessarily resolved exhaustion |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (states and state instrumentalities immune from suits in federal court; limits on Ex parte Young)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (permits prospective injunctive relief against individual state officers but not suits seeking relief grounded in state law)
- United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (standard for accord of preclusive effect to administrative proceedings)
- P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (collateral order doctrine; interlocutory appealability of Eleventh Amendment denials)
- Miller v. County of Santa Cruz, 39 F.3d 1030 (judicial exhaustion and preclusion principles; § 1094.5 provides meaningful de novo review)
- Micomonaco v. Washington, 45 F.3d 316 (standard of review for sovereign immunity issues)
- Kay v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 504 F.3d 803 (§ 1094.5 challenges are substantive state-law writs)
- BV Eng’g v. Univ. of Cal., LA, 858 F.2d 1394 (University of California is a state instrumentality entitled to Eleventh Amendment protection)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (abstention doctrine cited but not reached on appeal)