Brooke Elizabeth HEIKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES; Central Michigan University, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-2028.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
July 22, 2014.
Maldonado-Torres now petitions this Court for review of the BIA‘s order. Where, as here, “the BIA reviews the immigration judge‘s decision and issues a separate opinion, rather than summarily affirming the immigration judge‘s decision, we review the BIA‘s decision as the final agency determination.” Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Acquaah v. Holder, 589 F.3d 332, 334 (6th Cir. 2009). “An abuse of discretion exists where the denial was made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
A motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of the final administrative order of removal.
“[A] change in personal circumstances that is unaccompanied by a change in country conditions is insufficient to reopen proceedings.” Zhang v. Holder, 702 F.3d 878, 879-80 (6th Cir. 2012). Maldonado-Torres admitted that he “knew of the general dangerous situation in Mexico created by the drug cartels” at the time of his removal hearing and submitted evidence that his family has been targeted by the cartels for some time. In support of his motion to reopen, Maldonado-Torres alleged that, after the IJ granted him voluntary departure, he learned that cartel members had made a direct threat toward him—a change in personal circumstances—but failed to provide any evidence of changed country conditions in Mexico.
Maldonado-Torres‘s brief does not mention his application for CAT protection. That claim has therefore been abandoned. Hachem v. Holder, 656 F.3d 430, 433-34 (6th Cir. 2011).
We can discern no abuse of discretion in the denial of Maldonado-Torres‘s motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Accordingly, we deny Maldonado-Torres‘s petition for review.
BEFORE: COLE, ROGERS, and ALARCÓN, Circuit Judges.*
OPINION
COLE, Circuit Judge.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
From 2002 to 2006, Heike was a standout basketball player at Michigan‘s Romeo High School. In 2005, CMU offered Heike an athletic scholarship, subject to conditional yearly renewal, for the 2006-07 academic year. Heike accepted the offer and, in September 2006, matriculated at CMU, where she played as a member of the women‘s basketball team for the next two seasons. After Heike‘s freshman season, CMU replaced Coach Kleinfelter, the head coach who had recruited her, with Coach Guevara. At the close of Heike‘s sopho
B. Procedural Background
In February 2009, Heike filed a nine-count complaint in federal district court against CMU, Coach Guevara, CMU‘s athletic director, and CMU‘s assistant director of financial aid, alleging that Guevara revoked her scholarship either because Heike was white or because she was heterosexual. The defendants moved to dismiss Heike‘s claims as barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The defendants also averred that Heike failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because neither CMU nor its officials were “persons” within the meaning of
On September 2, 2009, the district court granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss Heike‘s complaint. The court dismissed all of Heike‘s claims against CMU on the basis of sovereign immunity. The court then explained that “[e]ven if sovereign immunity had been waived, CMU and the individual Defendants in their official capacities would not be amenable to suit for monetary damages under § 1983 because they are not ‘persons’ within the meaning of the statute.” Heike v. Guevara (Heike I), 654 F.Supp.2d 658, 672 (E.D.Mich.2009). After discussing Heike‘s supplemental breach-of-contract and tort claims and directing the parties to submit additional briefing as to Heike‘s negligent-hiring and negligent-supervision claims, the court ordered that “all of [Heike‘s] claims against Defendant Central Michigan University Board of Trustees are dismissed on the basis of sovereign immunity.” Id. at 677. Additionally, the court dismissed all of Heike‘s claims against the named CMU officials in their official capacities except to the extent that she sought prospective injunctive relief. Id.
On May 3, 2010, the district court granted the remaining defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Heike‘s § 1983 claims to the extent those claims sought prospective injunctive relief “against the Defendants in their individual capacities and in their official capacities.” The court then declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Heike‘s remaining state-law claims. See
While her first suit against CMU was still pending, but after the district court had dismissed the university from the action on the basis of sovereign immunity, Heike filed a second action against the university, alleging violations of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is from the dismissal of this second action that Heike now appeals.
In response to Heike‘s second round of claims, CMU moved to dismiss her as a party to the action under
In response, Heike argued that neither claim nor issue preclusion barred her suit. Specifically, Heike asserted that the dismissal of her claims against CMU on the basis of sovereign immunity in Heike I was not a final decision on the merits; that her second suit against CMU did not involve the same parties or their privies; that her second suit did not raise issues actually litigated or which should have been litigated in Heike I; and that there was no identity of claims. Heike further contested CMU‘s assertion that issue preclusion barred her suit as well.
The district court granted CMU‘s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed all of Heike‘s claims with prejudice on the basis of claim preclusion. The court first found that both of its prior orders—the first dismissing Heike‘s claims on the basis of sovereign immunity under
Heike timely appealed the dismissal of her second lawsuit against CMU.
II. ANALYSIS
The purpose of claim preclusion “is to promote the finality of judgments and thereby increase certainty, discourage multiple litigation, and conserve judicial resources.” Westwood Chem. Co., Inc. v. Kulick, 656 F.2d 1224, 1227 (6th Cir. 1981). After a careful review of the claims raised, the district court determined that claim preclusion barred Heike‘s second lawsuit in its entirety. We agree. The district court‘s May 3, 2010 Order granting summary judgment to the individual defendants in their official capacities satisfies every element of claim preclusion and therefore bars Heike‘s subsequent action against CMU.
We review de novo a district court‘s application of the doctrine of claim preclusion. Buck v. Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch., 597 F.3d 812, 816 (6th Cir. 2010). We apply the same de novo standard of review to a
“Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 476 (1998) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Claim preclusion applies when (1) there is a final decision on the merits in the first action by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the second action involves the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) the second action raises an issue actually litigated or which should have been litigated in the first action; and (4) there is an identity of claims between the first and second actions. Sanders Confectionery Prods., Inc. v. Heller Fin. Inc., 973 F.2d 474, 480 (6th Cir. 1992). Claim preclusion should not be confused with issue preclusion. “This latter doctrine only precludes relitigation of issues of fact or law actually litigated and decided in a prior action between the same parties and necessary to the judgment, even if decided as part of a different claim or cause of action.” Id. (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Because claim preclusion is an affirmative defense, CMU bears the burden of proving that the doctrine applies. See Rivet, 522 U.S. at 476; Winget v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 537 F.3d 565, 572 (6th Cir. 2008).
A. Final Adjudication on the Merits
Heike first argues that there was no final adjudication on the merits in Heike I with respect to CMU because the district court‘s September 2, 2009 Order dismissed CMU solely on the basis of sovereign immunity and a concordant lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. But as CMU correctly points out, Heike fails to meaningfully address the court‘s subsequent May 3, 2010 Order granting summary judgment to the remaining individual defendants in their official capacities. The grant of summary judgment most certainly constitutes a final adjudication on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion. Ohio Nat‘l Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 922 F.2d 320, 325 (6th Cir. 1990). Thus, contrary to Heike‘s assertions, and irrespective of the court‘s September 2, 2009 Order dismissing CMU, in part, on the basis of sovereign immunity,1 there was an independently sufficient final decision on the merits in Heike I upon which the district could base its claim-preclusion determination.
A final judgment on the merits of an action bars the same parties “or their privies” from relitigating claims that were or could have been raised in that action. Federated Dep‘t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981). Here, CMU stood in privity with its coaches and administrators because Heike sued those individuals in their official capacities in Heike I.
Principles of claim preclusion “do not always require one to have been a party to a judgment in order to be bound by it.” Richards v. Jefferson Cnty., 517 U.S. 793, 798 (1996). Rather, “there is an exception when ... there is ‘privity’ between a party to the second case and a party who is bound by an earlier judgment.” Id. Our court recognizes that “[i]ndividuals sued in their official capacities stand in the shoes of the entity they represent.” Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 810 (6th Cir. 2003); see also Moore‘s Federal Practice § 131.40[3][e][ii] (3d ed. 2014) (“A government official sued in his or her official capacity is considered to be in privity with the government.“). After all, “an official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the [governmental] entity.... for the real party in interest is the entity.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985) (citation omitted); Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Cir. 1994) (“A suit against an individual in his official capacity is the equivalent of a suit against the governmental entity.“). Accordingly, a prior judgment for an official in his or her official capacity will preclude a subsequent action on the same claim (or a claim that could have been brought in the first action) against the relevant governmental entity.
In the instant case, CMU‘s officials were awarded summary judgment in both their individual and official capacities. We therefore consider them privies of CMU for purposes of claim preclusion. Heike argues that CMU and its officials are not privies because, like CMU, CMU‘s officials were dismissed in their official capacities on jurisdictional grounds on September 2, 2009. Thus, Heike asserts, the district court‘s May 3, 2010 Order granted CMU‘s officials summary judgment only in their individual capacities. Unfortunately for Heike, she simply misstates the record on this point.
The district court dismissed Heike‘s claims against CMU‘s officials in their official capacities on the basis of sovereign immunity, “except to the extent that [Heike‘s] federal claims seek prospective injunctive relief.” Heike I, 654 F.Supp.2d at 663, 671. But the court allowed Heike‘s federal claims to proceed against the individual defendants in their official capacities to the extent that she sought prospective injunctive relief. Id. at 671. When the district court ultimately dismissed Heike‘s initial suit in its May 3, 2010 Order, the court explicitly stated that it was granting summary judgment to CMU‘s officials both “in their individual and their official capacities.” Therefore, Heike‘s misrepresentations notwithstanding, the district court‘s May 3, 2010 Order granting summary judgment was indeed a judgment in favor of CMU‘s officials in their official capacities.
Moreover, it does not matter for purposes of claim preclusion that the district court granted summary judgment to CMU‘s officials in both their official and individual capacities. See Pittman v. Mich. Corrs. Org., 123 Fed.Appx. 637, 640 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that claim preclusion barred a plaintiff‘s action because the individual defendants, “who were sued both in their official capacities and as individuals,” stood in privity with the govern
C. Issues Actually Litigated or Issues that Should Have Been Litigated
One purpose of claim preclusion is to compel litigants to bring all related claims in a single lawsuit. Wilkins v. Jakeway, 183 F.3d 528, 532 n. 4 (6th Cir. 1999). Thus, the third element of claim preclusion not only prohibits parties from bringing claims they already have brought, but also from bringing those claims they should have brought. Sanders, 973 F.2d at 482. A plaintiff should have litigated two claims in his or her first suit, and thus may not litigate the second claim later, where, as here, the two claims “arose from the same transaction, or series of transactions.” Rawe v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 462 F.3d 521, 529 (6th Cir. 2006).
In Rawe, we determined that a plaintiff‘s first and second causes of action arose from the same transaction where the plaintiff‘s allegations of bad faith were based upon the defendant‘s conduct that predated the plaintiff‘s first suit. Id. There, the plaintiff brought suit for uninsured motorist benefits and then brought a subsequent action against her insurer for bad faith that allegedly occurred both before and after her initial uninsured motorist claim was adjudicated. Id. In affirming the district court‘s dismissal of the plaintiff‘s bad-faith claims, we concluded that plaintiffs cannot avoid the effects of claim preclusion by merely repacking their grievances into alternative theories of recovery or by seeking different remedies. Id.
The factual and evidentiary nexus between Heike‘s first and second suits compels the same conclusion. Heike‘s initial § 1983 claims and her subsequent Title VI and Title IX claims all derive from her sophomore basketball season at CMU. The operative facts at the center of both suits are Heike‘s alleged mistreatment by the CMU coaching staff, her dismissal from the basketball team, and her subsequent loss of financial aid. All of these events pre-dated Heike‘s initial complaint. Moreover, as the district court correctly noted, Heike did not assert any new material facts in her second complaint. While Heike may have been dissuaded for any number of reasons from amending her initial complaint, she does not allege, nor does anything in the record indicate, that she was somehow prevented from raising her Title VI and Title IX claims in her original complaint. See Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246, 258-59 (2009) (observing that plaintiffs may bring Title VI and Title IX claims alongside § 1983 claims in a single suit). Accordingly, Heike should have brought her Title VI and Title IX claims in her initial complaint alongside her § 1983 claims, and she cannot now avoid the effect of claim preclusion by simply asserting a different theory of recovery. Rawe, 462 F.3d. at 529.
D. Identity of Claims
Lastly, to constitute a bar under the doctrine of claim preclusion, there must
As described, Heike‘s first and second lawsuits stem from the same factual predicate. Heike did not allege any new material facts in her second complaint. Had Heike brought her Title VI and IX claims alongside her § 1983 claims, she necessarily would have relied on the same evidence in support of those claims. It therefore is of no moment that the statutory elements of Titles VI and Title IX claims differ from those of an equal-protection or due-process claim raised under § 1983. Accordingly, there is no merit to Heike‘s assertion that the district court erred in finding an identity of claims between her first and second suits. Thus, the fourth and final element of claim preclusion is satisfied as well.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Stephen A. SACCOCCIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert L. FARLEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-5569.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
July 22, 2014.