Opinion
02 CIV. 274 (DLC)
December 27, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Michigan State University ("MSU") moves to dismiss plaintiff's complaint against it, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion. For the reasons discussed below, MSU's motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Aror Ark O'Diah ("O'Diah") brought this action against 38 defendants alleging, inter alia, violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The majority of these claims were dismissed in this Court's Opinion and Order of August 21, 2002. See O'Diah v. New York City, et. al., 2002 WL 1941179 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2002).
Familiarity with the factual background and legal principles discussed in that Opinion is assumed.
MSU served on plaintiff a Motion to Dismiss on or about March 25, 2002. Plaintiff acknowledged the arguments raised in this motion in his brief of May 23, 2002, opposing the motions to dismiss brought by 23 defendants. MSU's motion, however, was not properly filed with the Court, and therefore was not considered in the Court's Opinion of August 21, 2002. When MSU properly filed an amended motion to dismiss on September 9, this Court set a schedule for the submission of this motion.
The allegations about MSU's conduct, which appears to have taken place in 1997, are confined in O'Diah's complaint to four sentences of a 29-page pleading. O'Diah states:
As part of the August 21 Opinion and Order, O'Diah was permitted to re-plead his claims against certain defendants, although not against MSU. O'Diah at *22. Nonetheless, the re-pleading filed by O'Diah on September 26 contains additional factual allegations regarding MSU. Even if O'Diah had been permitted to amend his pleadings with respect to MSU, and these additional allegations were considered an opposition to MSU's motion to dismiss, they would not alter the analysis below.
As a result of the stigmatizing information made by Patransit [sic] Port Authority of Allegheny County to Michigan State University, plaintiff was denied apartment rental by the University. Plaintiff filed several appeal [sic] before the University Governing bodies, and plaintiff appeal was granted, and the university was forced to rent to the plaintiff. After plaintiff had won the university appeal, the university continue [sic] to denied [sic] the plaintiff rights to use the university Bus which the plaintiff had paid for. Also, plaintiff was denied registration in the University, and was forced to moved [sic] to Massachusetts, and New York on December 1997.
O'Diah made similar claims, later dismissed, against MSU in two separate actions in the Eastern District of New York. O'Diah at *2. Construing the language of O'Diah's complaint liberally, and read in the context of his other allegations of discrimination on the basis of race and national origin, O'Diah appears to be claiming that MSU's conduct constitutes a violation of either Section 1983 of Title 42, United States Code, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
DISCUSSION
MSU submits, among other arguments, that any claims against it under the relevant anti-discrimination statutes are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. As described in the August 21 Opinion, O'Diah at *6, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Eleventh Amendment to mean that States, as sovereigns, are immune from suit in federal court absent consent or valid abrogation of that immunity by Congress. See Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 73 (2000); Burnette v. Carothers, 192 F.3d 52, 57 (2d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1052 (2000) (citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974)). The immunity extends to state agencies. Puerto Rico Aqueduct Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 145 (1993).
MSU is shielded by Eleventh Amendment immunity for the purposes of these claims. See Williams v. Michigan State University, 1994 WL 617272, *4 (W.D.Mich. 1994); Hutchins v. Board of Trustees of Michigan State University, 595 F. Supp. 862, 864 (W.D.Mich. 1984). As discussed in the August 21 Opinion, O'Diah at *6, Congress has not abrogated a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity through either Section 1983 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Therefore, as O'Diah cannot bring a claim under these statutes against MSU, any such claim is dismissed with prejudice.
In their motion, MSU notes that O'Diah's allegations may also be construed as making out a state law claim for breach of contract or defamation. The August 21 Opinion makes clear that there is no diversity jurisdiction in this case, and "where no federal claims remain in an action, and diversity jurisdiction is lacking, a district court is not required to retain jurisdiction of remaining state law claims." O'Diah at *19. To the extent that O'Diah may or may not possess a state law cause of action against MSU, it is dismissed without prejudice to filing in the proper venue.
As MSU notes, as the events at issue took place in 1997, such a claim may be time-barred.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, all claims under federal law against MSU are dismissed with prejudice. Any state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in the proper jurisdiction.SO ORDERED: