Rajin Patel v. Texas Tech University, 941 F.3d 743

Background:

Rajin Patel, a Texas Tech graduate student, was accused of cheating after his answers resembled a test bank; instructor Duane Jones reported the suspicion to the Office of Student Conduct (OSC).
OSC, led by associate director Brittany Todd, investigated, produced an adverse report, and an OSC panel found Patel responsible for plagiarism and cheating, imposing academic and financial penalties; Texas Tech denied his internal appeal.
Patel sued Texas Tech and individual officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (substantive due process and equal protection) and brought a breach-of-contract claim (later voluntarily dismissed); some individual-capacity claims were earlier dismissed on qualified immunity grounds (not at issue on appeal).
The district court excluded two unsworn expert reports but did not make findings they could not be made admissible; it then granted defendants summary judgment, dismissing Patel’s constitutional claims.
The Fifth Circuit held the district court abused its discretion by excluding the unsworn expert reports under the amended Rule 56; the court considered those reports on de novo review and nonetheless affirmed summary judgment.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by refusing to consider unsworn expert reports at summary judgment	The unsworn expert reports should be considered because their contents could be presented in admissible form at trial	The district court excluded the reports because they were unsworn and thus inadmissible	Court: Exclusion was an abuse of discretion under amended Rule 56(c); appellate court considered the reports
Substantive due process – whether academic decision was unconstitutional	Patel: Defendants failed to exercise professional judgment; process/result violated substantive due process	Defendants: Academic decision supported by investigation and evidence; courts must defer to faculty judgment	Court: No genuine dispute that Defendants exercised professional judgment; summary judgment affirmed
Equal protection (class-of-one) – selective enforcement	Patel: He was singled out (others allegedly implicated) and treated differently without rational basis	Defendants: No evidence Patel was treated differently from similarly situated students; rational basis exists for differential treatment	Court: No evidence of similarly situated comparators or irrational treatment; claim fails; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Patel’s expert evidence created a genuine factual dispute about cheating sufficient to defeat summary judgment	Experts: Linguistic analysis and learning-disability evidence undermine finding of cheating	Defendants: Even contrary expert views do not show absence of professional judgment or a decision beyond reasoned academic norms	Court: Experts, even considered, did not create constitutional dispute; judicial review is narrow and deference applies

Key Cases Cited

Maurer v. Independence Town, 870 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2017) (district-court evidentiary rulings on summary judgment reviewed for abuse of discretion under amended Rule 56)
Lee v. Offshore Logistical & Transport, L.L.C., 859 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2017) (explaining Rule 56 amendment allowing unsworn materials if capable of being presented in admissible form)
LSR Consulting, L.L.C. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 835 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 2016) (evidence at summary judgment need not be in admissible form if its substance can be admissible at trial)
Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1985) (courts must defer to academic judgments unless decision is a substantial departure from accepted academic norms)
Wheeler v. Miller, 168 F.3d 241 (5th Cir. 1999) (narrow judicial review of academic decisions applies to due process and equal protection claims)
Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) (conclusory allegations cannot defeat summary judgment)
Lindquist v. City of Pasadena Tex., 669 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2012) (elements of a class-of-one equal protection claim)
Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (U.S. 2000) (class-of-one equal protection theory)
Ezell v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 866 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2017) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
Endres v. N.E. Ohio Med. Univ., 938 F.3d 281 (6th Cir. 2019) (distinguishing procedural due process and academic vs. disciplinary decisions; discussed but not controlling)