Jiayang Hua v. University of Utah ( 2007 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
August 22, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JIA Y A N G H U A ,
Petitioner - A ppellant,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH; DAVID
PERSHING, Vice President;
No. 07-4070
U N IV ERSITY O F U TA H
(D.C. No. 2:06-CV-00662-DAK)
SOCIOLO GY DEPARTM ENT;
(D. Utah)
FREDERICK RH OD EW ALT,
Sociology Department Chair;
SOCIOLO GY GR AD UA TE
COM M ITTEE; GEORGE M ILLER,
Graduate D irector,
Respondents - Appellees.
OR DER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before L UC ER O, HA RTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Jiayang Hua, an expelled sociology graduate student at the University of
Utah, filed two unsuccessful pro se lawsuits in Utah state courts against the
University and several of its officials, challenging his expulsion on both federal
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G ).
This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and
judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive
value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
and state law grounds. Unhappy with the results in his state court proceedings,
M r. Hua then filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Utah, essentially attempting to appeal the state courts’ decisions. The
district court held, inter alia, that M r. Hua failed to state a claim due to the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Alternatively, it held that either res judicata (claim
preclusion) or the Utah statute of limitations barred his federal action. W e agree
and affirm.
***
In M ay 1999, the Sociology Department at the University of Utah expelled
Jiayang Hua from its graduate program for failure to make sufficient progress
toward his doctoral degree. Over a year later, M r. Hua appealed this decision to
the department, which stood by its decision to expel him. M r. Hua then appealed
to the College of Social and Behavioral Science Academic M isconduct
Committee, which denied M r. Hua’s appeal in writing after granting him a full
evidentiary hearing in April 2001. Both the dean and vice president of academic
affairs reviewed and denied M r. Hua’s appeal before the University issued a final
written denial in M arch 2002.
In August 2002, M r. Hua filed a lawsuit in state court against the
University, its vice president for academic affairs, the sociology department, and
its chair, seeking to revisit the U niversity’s decision to expel him. The U tah court
dismissed M r. Hua’s lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction under the Utah Government
-2-
Immunity Act and the Utah Administrative Procedures Act. Instead of appealing
this dismissal, M r. Hua brought a second state court lawsuit in July 2003 against
the University, the sociology department, its chair, and the graduate program
director. Here, M r. Hua again sought review of the University’s decision to expel
him, though he also added claims for money damages, alleging emotional distress
and violations of his federal rights, including under the Takings Clause. The state
trial court this time held that Utah’s four-year statute of limitations barred M r.
Hua’s federal claims and res judicata barred his state claims. M r. Hua appealed
to the Utah appellate court, which affirmed; both the Utah Supreme Court and
United States Supreme Court declined to take his case.
In August 2006, M r. Hua filed the present action in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah, seeking review of his expulsion
proceedings and state court suits, alleging violations of his federal rights, and
seeking damages. The district court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
prevented it from entertaining his suit. See Bolden v. City of Topeka, Kan., 441
F.3d 1129, 1139 (10th Cir. 2006) (“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits
federal suits that amount to appeals of state-court judgments.”). Alternatively,
the district court held that res judicata (claim preclusion) foreclosed its review.
See MACTEC, Inc. v. Gorelick, 427 F.3d 821, 831 (10th Cir. 2005) (“The doctrine
of res judicata, or claim preclusion, will prevent a party from relitigating a legal
claim that was or could have been the subject of a previously issued final
-3-
judgment.”) (internal citation omitted). Indeed, the district court held that (1) the
Utah state courts issued final judgments on the merits; (2) M r. Hua sued the same
parties as in the Utah state court proceedings; and (3) M r. Hua brought an
identical cause of action in federal court that he brought in state court. Finally,
the district court held M r. Hua’s federal lawsuit also suffered from fatal
limitations problems. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25(3) (providing four-year
statute of limitations “for relief not otherwise provided by law”). Thus, the
district court dismissed with prejudice M r. H ua’s complaint, under, inter alia, 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim. 1
The charges leveled in M r. Hua’s complaint fall into three broad categories:
(1) those seeking review of his state court proceedings, alleging, for example,
abuse of discretion by Utah judges; (2) those seeking direct review of the
University’s decision to terminate him; and (3) those alleging violations of his
federal rights. Construing M r. Hua’s pro se complaint w ith due generosity, see
Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007), we affirm the district
court’s dismissal for substantially the same reasons as outlined in its well-
reasoned opinion. 2
1
The district court also found M r. Hua’s complaint frivolous under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Because we agree with the district court that M r. Hua
fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), we need not address its
alternative frivolousness ruling.
2
W e grant M r. Hua’s motion to make “technical corrections” to his
(continued...)
-4-
First, as the district court explained, it is not generally our role as federal
judges to entertain appeals from state courts. See W right, M iller & Cooper, 18B
Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 4469.1 (“The ‘Rooker-Feldman’ doctrine . . . establishes a
nearly redundant limit on federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The basic theory is
that only the U nited States Supreme Court has been given jurisdiction to review a
state-court decision. The general statutes that establish original federal
subject-matter jurisdiction in the district courts do not extend to an ‘appeal’ from
a state-court judgment. This doctrine is nearly redundant because most of the
actions dismissed for want of jurisdiction also could be resolved by invoking the
claim- or issue-preclusion consequences of the state judgments.”). To the extent
that M r. Hua seeks to set aside the state court rulings against him – which he does
in asserting that the state courts applied inappropriate legal standards and in
questioning their judgments and discretion – we lack jurisdiction to hear his
claims and affirm dismissal of those portions of his appeal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman.
As to the claims that the University unfairly expelled him – claims M r. Hua
has effectively recycled through the Utah courts and now through the federal
court system – the district court properly held that the Utah state court decisions
2
(...continued)
opening brief.
-5-
precluded M r. Hua’s federal court claims. Accordingly, we affirm dismissal of
those claims as res judicata.
Finally, M r. Hua’s federal claims are time barred. Even if – most
generously to M r. Hua – the statute-of-limitations clock did not begin ticking
until M arch 11, 2002, when the University issued its final order upholding its
M ay 1999 decision to expel him, he did not file his complaint in the district court
until August 2006. This is clearly outside of the applicable four-year limitations
window, and we are pointed to no relevant authority indicating that M r. Hua’s
claims should be tolled. Affirmed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M . Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-6-