Tami Henry v. Universal Technical Institute
559 F. App'x 648
9th Cir.2014Background
- Henry, pro se, sued UT I for Title VI violations and other claims arising from his student experience.
- District court granted summary judgment on Henry's Title VI makeup/test issue for lack of genuine disputes of material fact.
- Remaining Title VI claims were dismissed for lack of injury, standing, or discrimination allegations.
- Fourteenth Amendment, FERPA, 18 U.S.C. § 371, and other state-law claims were dismissed for lack of state action, no private right, or improper elements.
- Court also denied certain motions (recusal, discovery, in forma pauperis, default judgment) and affirmed dismissal; affirmed overall.
- Decision affirmed without oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there evidence of discrimination in makeup/testing denial under Title VI? | Henry alleged racial/national origin discrimination by UTI. | UTI's actions lacked non-speculative, specific facts of discrimination. | No genuine dispute; summary judgment affirmed for Title VI claim. |
| Do Henry's other Title VI claims show injury or discrimination? | Other conduct prejudiced him on race/origin. | No cognizable injury or discriminatory conduct shown. | Claims dismissed for lack of standing/injury or discrimination. |
| Does Henry state a valid Fourteenth Amendment claim given state action? | Actions by UT I implicate state action values under the Amendment. | No conduct by state actors; no state action. | Dismissed for lack of state action. |
| Are FERPA and 18 U.S.C. § 371 privately actionable? | FERPA and related provisions create rights enforceable in civil action. | No private right of action under FERPA or criminal provisions. | Dismissed; no private right of action. |
| Does Henry state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), or other related statutes? | There was a conspiracy to deprive rights due to discriminatory animus. | Allegations lack proof of discriminatory animus and conspiracy elements. | Dismissed; no discriminatory animus shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fobbs v. Holy Cross Health Sys. Corp., 29 F.3d 1439 (9th Cir. 1994) (Title VI requirements; later overruled on other grounds)
- Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (non-speculative evidence of specific facts required to survive summary judgment)
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (state action requirement for Fourteenth Amendment)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (no private right of action to enforce FERPA)
- Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980) (no civil liability under criminal provisions; private rights absent)