77 F.4th 1214
9th Cir.2023Background
- R.W., a CBC nursing student, told his doctor in March 2017 that he had intrusive homicidal thoughts about three instructors; a social worker reported those statements to police and R.W. voluntarily entered inpatient psychiatric care for four nights.
- CBC officials (Dean Ralph Reagan and President Lee Thornton) issued a no-trespass order, removed R.W. from the nursing program, and entered failing grades for his winter‑2017 coursework after a student‑conduct finding based on Wash. Admin. Code §132S‑100‑205.
- R.W. sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment) and disability‑discrimination statutes seeking damages and prospective injunctive relief (reinstatement and expungement). The district court earlier granted R.W. partial summary judgment on First Amendment liability but denial of qualified immunity was reversed on appeal; the case was remanded.
- On remand the district court dismissed CBC on Eleventh Amendment grounds but allowed R.W.’s request for prospective injunctive relief to proceed against the officials in their official capacities under Ex parte Young; defendants appealed arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity, mootness, and challenging substitution of the current president.
- The Ninth Circuit limited its review to Ex parte Young and related collateral‑order issues, held Ex parte Young applicable (injunctive relief claim not moot), affirmed in part and dismissed interlocutory challenges to liability reconsideration and Rule 25 substitution for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Ex parte Young (official‑capacity injunctive suit) | R.W. alleged ongoing violation and seeks prospective relief (reinstatement, expungement, lift trespass) | Ex parte Young inapplicable because alleged conduct was past and merits (true threat/Tinker) | Ex parte Young applies: complaint alleges ongoing violation and prospective relief; suit may proceed against officials in official capacities |
| Mootness / voluntary cessation | Sanctions remain in force or leave lingering consequences; reasonable expectation of reinstatement of sanctions | Defendants ceased conduct and lack authority now; sanctions expired when R.W. did not reapply | Not moot: defendants failed heavy burden to show wrongful behavior could not reasonably recur; triable issues on continued sanctions and possibility of reinstatement |
| Whether interlocutory review may reach district court’s refusal to reconsider prior summary‑judgment liability | N/A (R.W. relies on prior liability finding to support Ex parte Young) | Argues merits (true threat/Tinker) undermine Ex parte Young and seek interlocutory review of liability ruling | Court lacks jurisdiction to review refusal to reconsider liability on interlocutory appeal; collateral‑order doctrine does not extend to merits defenses to liability |
| Rule 25 substitution of current president (Woods for Thornton) and immediate appealability | Substituting current official is proper for injunctive relief; official‑capacity suit targets office | Substitution deprives substituted official of Eleventh Amendment protection and is immediately appealable | Substitution is procedural and not immediately appealable under collateral order doctrine; Rule 25 substitutions are interlocutory and reviewable on final judgment; substitution itself does not defeat Ex parte Young relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (establishes that prospective relief against state officials is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (official‑capacity suit is treated as suit against the office/State for some purposes)
- Koala v. Khosla, 931 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2019) (Ex parte Young requires only alleged ongoing violation and prospective relief)
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) (limits on collateral‑order interlocutory appeals)
- Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat’l Lab’y, 131 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 1997) (reinstatement can constitute prospective injunctive relief)
- DeJohn v. Temple Univ., 537 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2008) (voluntary cessation does not moot a claim where reasonable expectation of reimplementation exists)
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (student speech framework; referenced by defendants as an alternative test)
- Nunag‑Tanedo v. E. Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 711 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2013) (collateral‑order doctrine does not permit interlocutory review of merits defenses to liability)