Ryan Patrick Nicholl v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
706 F. App'x 493
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Ryan Nicholl (pro se) sued the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia alleging constitutional violations, antitrust violations, and breach of contract for charging him and denying opt-out of a university meal plan.
- District court dismissed the complaint on Eleventh Amendment sovereign-immunity grounds and the clerk entered judgment after dismissal.
- Nicholl moved to vacate and for leave to amend (proposing, among other things, in rem or quiet-title theories and naming state officials), which the district court denied as futile; he appealed.
- On appeal Nicholl argued the Board is not an arm of the state, that immunity does not bar his antitrust, contract, or constitutional claims, that money damages and in rem relief should be available, and that the clerk’s entry of judgment was improper.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed immunity issues de novo and review of denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion (futility reviewed de novo).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board is an "arm of the state" entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity | Board is not a sovereign arm; contracts in Board’s name make it distinct from the State | Board is an arm of Georgia and therefore entitled to sovereign immunity | Board is an arm of the state; Eleventh Amendment immunity applies |
| Whether federal antitrust claims are barred by state-action/sovereign immunity | Antitrust claims should proceed despite Board status | State-action doctrine and sovereign immunity bar antitrust suits against an arm of the state | Antitrust claims barred; Board outside reach of Sherman and Clayton Acts |
| Whether contract and money-damages claims may proceed in federal court | Georgia contract waiver doesn’t preclude federal recovery; unlawfully obtained funds should be returned | Georgia hasn’t consented to federal suits for breach of contract; Eleventh Amendment bars monetary relief | Contract claims must be litigated in Georgia state court; federal money damages barred |
| Whether constitutional claims (including takings/due process) survive immunity or are saved by Ex Parte Young or state procedures | Takings/due process claim should overcome immunity; could be framed as contesting ownership (in rem) | §1983 suits against the State are barred; Ex Parte Young doesn’t apply to suits against state agencies; Georgia provides remedy for takings | Constitutional claims against the Board dismissed; Ex Parte Young inapplicable to the Board; takings claim not ripe (state remedy exists) |
| Whether court retained in rem jurisdiction over disputed funds despite sovereign immunity | Court can adjudicate ownership of the funds in rem even if immunity applies | Argument not raised below; issues not considered on appeal | In rem argument forfeited on appeal; court declined to consider it |
| Whether denial of leave to amend was erroneous (futility) | Amendment to name officials or convert to in rem/quiet-title would cure defects | Proposed amendments would still be futile because immunity/pleading deficiencies remain | Denial of leave to amend affirmed; proposed amendments would be futile |
| Whether clerk improperly entered judgment | Entry of judgment by clerk was improper without court direction | Rule 58(b) requires clerk to enter judgment when all relief is denied | Clerk properly entered judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b)(1)(C) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613 (addresses Board’s waiver issue and arm-of-state status)
- Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282 (Eleventh Circuit recognition of Board’s Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (state-action immunity doctrine for antitrust law)
- Saenz v. Univ. Interscholastic League, 487 F.2d 1026 (entity tied to a state university immune from Sherman Act)
- Barnes v. Zaccari, 669 F.3d 1295 (Georgia has not waived Eleventh Amendment immunity for contract claims in federal court)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (§1983 does not permit suits against states)
- Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (Ex Parte Young exception does not apply to suits against state agencies)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)