700 F. App'x 528
7th Cir.2017Background
- In Oct 2013 Zachary Mutter, a UIC dental student, drew a Missouri-registered handgun to stop an assault; he had no Illinois FOID or carry license.
- Campus student patrol officers and campus police were present; Mutter aimed his gun at the attacker and later put the gun away; his friend called 911.
- Student patrol officers filed criminal complaints; Mutter was arrested, later acquitted of the remaining charges.
- UIC held a disciplinary hearing (Mutter had counsel but could not testify or cross-examine witnesses) and expelled him from the dental school, offering an opportunity to reinstate in 2015.
- Mutter sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Second, Fourth, Fourteenth Amendments) and state law against UIC, UIC Police, student patrol officers, Associate Dean Rodriguez, and Board Chair Kennedy, seeking reinstatement and damages; he sued individual defendants only in their official capacities.
- The district court dismissed most claims invoking the Eleventh Amendment and for failure to state a claim; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding damages and claims against the university barred and reinstatement claims moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UIC and UIC Police are proper § 1983 defendants | Mutter contends the university entities violated his federal rights and are suable for relief | Defendants argue states/muni entities are immune under the Eleventh Amendment and not "persons" for § 1983 | Dismissed: UIC and UIC Police are not suable under § 1983; Eleventh Amendment bars claims against them |
| Whether official-capacity suits against individual defendants can seek damages | Mutter seeks relief from officials in their official capacities, including damages and reinstatement | Defendants: official-capacity suit only permits prospective equitable relief, not damages; Eleventh Amendment bars damages | Held: Damages unavailable in official-capacity suits; Eleventh Amendment bars damages claim |
| Whether prospective relief (reinstatement) against officials is permissible under Ex parte Young | Mutter seeks reinstatement as ongoing prospective relief for federal violations (due process, etc.) | Defendants: any alleged disciplinary injury has ended; reinstatement opportunity in 2015 removes any ongoing violation; claim is moot | Held: Prospective relief is moot because expulsion was time-limited and 2015 reinstatement opportunity removed the ongoing violation |
| Whether mootness is negated by outside obligations (Air Force tuition obligation) | Mutter argues he remains harmed because he owes tuition to the Air Force and thus needs damages or relief | Defendants: official-capacity suit cannot yield damages; the tuition issue does not render an official-capacity injunctive claim nonmoot | Held: Mootness stands; tuition obligation does not overcome Eleventh Amendment bar to damages in official-capacity suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits official-capacity suits for prospective equitable relief to stop ongoing federal violations)
- Peirick v. Indiana Univ.–Purdue Univ. Indianapolis Athletics Dep’t, 510 F.3d 681 (7th Cir.) (Eleventh Amendment bars most suits against state/university entities; Ex parte Young exception explained)
- Kroll v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904 (7th Cir.) (distinguishes individual-capacity damages suits from official-capacity suits)
- Osteen v. Henley, 13 F.3d 221 (7th Cir.) (time-limited disciplinary sanctions can render prospective-relief claims moot)
- Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979) (state officials in official capacity cannot be sued for damages under § 1983)
- Indiana Prot. & Advocacy Servs. v. Indiana Family & Soc. Servs. Admin., 603 F.3d 365 (7th Cir.) (dismissal on Eleventh Amendment is a merits decision and should be with prejudice)
- Ozinga v. Price, 855 F.3d 730 (7th Cir.) (a removed or cured constitutional defect can render a request for prospective relief moot)