UWM Student Ass'n v. Lovell
266 F. Supp. 3d 1121
E.D. Wis.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (current and former UWM students) sued UWM officials and related actors alleging a multi-year conspiracy to undermine student government (SA/PSA/DSA), retaliate for student speech, deny due process, and withhold public records.
- The operative pleading was the Third Amended Complaint with seven counts: individual First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, challenges to disciplinary processes, a centerpiece conspiracy claim seeking declaratory/injunctive relief (Count VI), and public-records claims.
- Several defendants had been dismissed earlier for failure to effect timely service under Wisconsin law; plaintiffs later submitted belated affidavits of service which the court rejected as untimely and unreliable.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss; removal waived Eleventh Amendment immunity but, under Wisconsin law and controlling precedent, state sovereign immunity remained available for state-law and official-capacity claims.
- The court concluded Count VI (the broad, prospective declaratory/injunctive conspiracy claim) was barred by Wisconsin sovereign immunity because plaintiffs sought relief effectively addressing past harms rather than genuinely prospective relief.
- With Count VI gone, the court found plaintiffs’ remaining claims improperly joined (a "buckshot" complaint) in violation of Rules 18 and 20 and George v. Smith, and dismissed the action with prejudice after multiple unsuccessful amendment opportunities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of service on certain defendants | Service was or can be completed (affidavits submitted later); removal restarts opportunities | Plaintiffs failed to serve within Wisconsin 90‑day deadline and then failed to serve under Rule 4(m); belated affidavits are insufficient | Dismissal of those defendants for failure to timely serve stands; plaintiffs offered no good cause or excusable neglect |
| Sovereign immunity re Count VI (declaratory/injunctive relief) | Count VI seeks prospective relief exempt from immunity (citing Lister) | Wisconsin sovereign immunity bars suits against the State/state officials in official capacity for these claims; removal does not extinguish state-law immunity | Count VI is barred by state sovereign immunity; plaintiffs' requested relief is retrospective and not a permissible prospective exception |
| Joinder of numerous claims/defendants | All claims are linked by the alleged conspiracy (Count VI) serving as common nexus | Claims are discrete, occurred at different times involving different actors; joinder rules unmet absent Count VI | With Count VI dismissed, remaining claims are improperly joined under Rules 18/20 and George; complaint is a ‘‘buckshot’’ and must be dismissed |
| Leave to amend / final disposition | Plaintiffs should get another chance to amend | Defendants point to repeated failures, delay, prejudice | Court denied further amendment as futile and dismissed the action with prejudice given multiple prior opportunities and procedural/merits defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (labels-and-conclusions doctrine in pleadings)
- Lapides v. Board of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613 (removal and waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Omosegbon v. Wells, 335 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2003) (state sovereign immunity survives removal for state-law claims)
- George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (improper joinder and ‘‘buckshot’’ complaints)
- Lister v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., 72 Wis.2d 282 (Wis. 1976) (prospective-equitable-relief exception to state sovereign immunity)
- Del Raine v. Carlson, 826 F.2d 698 (7th Cir. 1987) (amended complaint does not restart service clock)