Jane Marie Egerdahl v. Hibbing Com. College , 72 F.3d 615 ( 1995 )


Menu:
  •                                    _____________
    No. 95-1700MN
    _____________
    Jane Marie Egerdahl,                    *
    *
    Appellant,                   *
    *
    v.                                 *
    *   On Appeal from the United
    *   States District Court
    Hibbing Community College;              *   for the District of
    Minnesota Community College             *   Minnesota.
    System; State of Minnesota;             *
    Myron Schmidt; Anthony Kuznik;          *
    and Jerry Krause,                       *
    *
    Appellees.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted:    October 19, 1995
    Filed:   December 18, 1995
    ___________
    Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, WHITE,* Associate Justice, and
    LOKEN, Circuit Judge.
    ___________
    RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.
    Jane Marie Egerdahl claims that the State of Minnesota, the Minnesota
    Community College System, Hibbing Community College ("Hibbing"), and three
    Hibbing employees discriminated against her on the basis of race and gender
    and, therefore, violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20
    U.S.C. § 1681 ("Title IX"), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VI
    of the Civil Rights
    *The Hon. Byron R. White, Associate Justice, Retired, Supreme
    Court of the United States, sitting by designation.
    Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d ("Title VI"), and the Equal Protection
    Clause    of    the   Fourteenth    Amendment.     The   District     Court   dismissed
    Egerdahl's suit.      We reverse the District Court's dismissal of Egerdahl's
    Title IX and Title VI claims, but affirm its decision to dismiss her
    § 1981, § 1983, and equal-protection claims.
    I.
    During the fall of 1992, Jane Marie Egerdahl, who is part Native
    American, enrolled in a chemistry class at Hibbing Community College, a
    state-run school that receives federal funds.            Egerdahl claims that Jerry
    Krause,      a chemistry instructor at Hibbing, engaged in a pattern of
    discriminatory treatment based on Egerdahl's race and gender.                 According
    to Egerdahl, she reported Krause's conduct to Hibbing's Dean, Myron
    Schmidt,     and   its    President,   Anthony   Kuznik,     but   the   discrimination
    continued throughout the fall semester.
    On October 1, 1993, Egerdahl filed charges with the Minnesota
    Department of Human Rights, claiming that the defendants had violated the
    Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"), Minn. Stat. § 363.03.                Egerdahl then
    withdrew her charge with the Department of Human Rights and, on June 7,
    1994, filed this complaint in federal court, alleging violations of Title
    IX, § 1981, § 1983, the Equal Protection Clause, the MHRA, and state tort
    law.   She later amended her complaint to drop her state-law claims and to
    add a claim under Title VI.
    The     District   Court    dismissed    Egerdahl's    suit.      It   held   that
    Egerdahl's Title VI and Title IX claims were governed by the MHRA's one-
    year statute of limitations, Minn. Stat. § 363.06, subd. 3, and that this
    limitations period had run before Egerdahl filed suit in federal court.
    The District Court also held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Egerdahl's
    § 1981, § 1983, and equal-protection
    -2-
    claims.
    II.
    Egerdahl argues that the District Court erred by holding that the
    MHRA's one-year statute of limitations governs Title VI and Title IX
    claims.   She asserts that the appropriate statute of limitations is the
    six-year limitations period of Minnesota's personal-injury statute, Minn.
    Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5).    We agree.
    When, as in the case of Title VI and Title IX, a federal statute does
    not contain a limitations period, courts must select "the most appropriate
    or analogous state statute of limitations." Goodman v. Lukens Steel
    Company, 
    482 U.S. 656
    , 660 (1987).         The District Court relied on its
    decision in Deli v. University of Minnesota, 
    863 F. Supp. 958
    (D. Minn.
    1994), which held that the MHRA's limitations period should apply to Title
    IX claims because "[b]oth the MHRA and Title IX proscribe discrimination
    in educational institutions on the basis of gender and essentially seek to
    make whole the victims of such discrimination."    
    Id. at 962.1
      In addition,
    1
    The MHRA provides:
    It is an unfair discriminatory practice:
    (1) To discriminate in any manner in the full utilization
    of or benefit from any educational institution, or the
    services rendered thereby to any person because of race,
    color, . . . [or] sex . . ..
    . . .
    Minn. Stat. § 363.03, subd. 5.
    Under Title IX,
    No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be
    excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or
    be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or
    activity receiving federal assistance.
    20 U.S.C. § 1681.
    -3-
    the District Court extended the reasoning that
    -4-
    it employed in Deli to Title VI claims.                     It concluded that because Title
    VI   and       the       MHRA    both   prohibit   racial   discrimination   by   educational
    2
    institutions, the MHRA's one-year limitations period should govern claims
    under Title VI as well as those under Title IX.
    We think that the District Court's decision is inconsistent with
    Wilson v. Garcia, 
    471 U.S. 261
    (1985), which held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983
    claims are subject to the limitations period in each state's personal-
    injury statute.3                In Wilson, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that
    § 1983 claims should be governed by the period of limitations in states'
    civil-rights statutes.                  The Court held that § 1983 claims are better
    characterized as personal-injury actions because it is unlikely that the
    limitations period for personal-injury actions "ever was, or ever would be,
    fixed in a way that would discriminate against federal claims, or be
    inconsistent with federal law in any respect."                      
    Id. at 279.
        The same
    reasoning applies to Title VI and Title IX claims.
    Moreover, the District Court's decision fails to take into account
    the federal interest in uniformity and certainty.                    See 
    id. 2 Title
    VI provides:
    No person in the United States shall, on grounds of race,
    color or national origin, be excluded from participation
    in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
    discrimination under any program receiving federal
    assistance.
    42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
    3
    In Minnesota, § 1983 claims are governed by the six-year
    limitations period of Minnesota's personal-injury statute, Minn.
    Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5). Berg v. Groschen, 
    437 N.W.2d 75
    , 77
    (Minn. App. 1989).
    -5-
    at 275.    "Title VI is a civil rights statute [that is] closely analogous
    to sections 1983 and 1981."    Baker v. Board of Regents of State of Kan.,
    
    991 F.2d 628
    , 631 (10th Cir. 1993).    Indeed, a plaintiff suing a federally-
    supported program for racial discrimination may bring a claim under any one
    of these three laws.    Because the Supreme Court has characterized both
    § 1983 and § 1981 as personal-injury statutes, see 
    Goodman, 482 U.S. at 661-62
    , Title VI claims should also be governed by the limitations period
    in Minnesota's personal-injury statute.     See Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of
    Cal., 
    993 F.2d 710
    , 712 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 
    114 S. Ct. 890
    (1994)    (Title VI claims should be governed by the same statute of
    limitations that applies to § 1983 claims); 
    Baker, 991 F.2d at 631
    (characterizing Title VI claims as personal-injury actions "promotes a
    consistent and uniform framework by which suitable statutes of limitations
    can be determined for civil rights claims."); Chambers v. Omaha Pub. Sch.
    Dist., 
    536 F.2d 222
    , 225 n.2 (8th Cir. 1976) (Title VI claims are
    "controlled by the same considerations which inhere in . . . § 1981 and
    § 1983 claims.").
    As for Title IX, it is also analogous to § 1983 -- both statutes
    prohibit gender discrimination by state-run schools that receive federal
    funds.    See Bougher v. University of Pittsburgh, 
    882 F.2d 74
    , 77-78 (3d
    Cir. 1989).   Furthermore, "Title IX was patterned after Title VI.     . . .
    Except for the substitution of the word ``sex' in Title IX to replace the
    words ``race, color or national origin' in Title VI, the two statutes use
    identical language to describe the benefited class."    Cannon v. University
    of Chicago, 
    441 U.S. 677
    , 694-95 (1979).       Therefore, Title IX should be
    subject to the same limitations period that applies to § 1983 and Title VI.
    We hold that the six-year limitations period of Minn. Stat. § 541.05,
    subd. 1(5) governs Title VI and Title IX claims.       Because this six-year
    period did not expire before Egerdahl filed suit in federal court, we
    reverse the District Court's dismissal of
    -6-
    Egerdahl's Title VI and Title IX claims.
    III.
    Egerdahl also appeals the dismissal of her § 1981, § 1983, and equal-
    protection claims.     We affirm as to these claims.
    A.
    We   first   address   Egerdahl's    argument   that   Congress   abrogated
    Minnesota's Eleventh Amendment immunity from Egerdahl's equal-protection
    claims.     Generally, "in the absence of consent a suit in which the State
    or one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant is
    proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment."        Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v.
    Halderman, 
    465 U.S. 89
    , 100 (1984).         Congress may pass legislation under
    the Commerce Clause or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to override
    states' Eleventh Amendment immunity.         See Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co.,
    
    491 U.S. 1
    , 14-23, 57 (1989); Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 
    427 U.S. 445
    , 456
    (1976).     But Congress must make its intention to abrogate states' immunity
    "unmistakably clear in the language of the statute."            Atascadero State
    Hospital v. Scanlon, 
    473 U.S. 234
    , 242 (1985).
    Egerdahl asserts that 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7(a)(1) overrides states'
    immunity from equal-protection claims that are brought in suits that also
    allege violations of Title VI or Title IX.       Section 2000d-7(a)(1) provides
    that
    [a] State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of
    the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal
    court for a violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
    of 1973 . . ., title IX of the education amendments of 1972 .
    . ., the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 . . ., title VI of the
    Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . ., or the provisions of any other
    Federal statute prohibiting discrimination by recipients of
    Federal financial assistance.
    -7-
    Although section 2000d-7(a)(1) does abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment
    immunity from Title VI and Title IX claims, see Franklin v. Gwinett County
    Pub. Sch., 
    503 U.S. 60
    , 72 (1992), it does not even mention the Equal
    Protection Clause.    Section 2000d-7(a)(1), therefore, does not provide
    unmistakable evidence of a congressional intent to override states'
    immunity from equal-protection claims, whether or not these claims are
    brought in suits that also allege violations of Title VI or Title IX.4
    B.
    Finally, Egerdahl argues that the District Court erred by holding
    that her § 1981 and § 1983 claims against Kuznik, Schmidt, and Krause were
    barred by the Eleventh Amendment because she failed to sue these defendants
    in their personal capacities.
    The Eleventh Amendment does not prevent a plaintiff from seeking
    damages from a state official if she sues the official in his personal
    capacity.   See, e.g., Scheuer v. Rhodes, 
    416 U.S. 232
    , 238 (1974).   In Nix
    v. Norman, 
    879 F.2d 429
    (8th Cir. 1989), we held that a plaintiff who
    wishes to sue a state official in his personal capacity must so specify in
    her complaint.   
    Id. at 431.
      If a plaintiff's complaint is silent about the
    capacity in which she is suing the defendant, we interpret the complaint
    as including only official-capacity claims.      See DeYoung v. Patten, 
    898 F.2d 4
          Egerdahl cites Sharif by Salahuddin v. New York State Educ.
    Dept., 
    709 F. Supp. 345
    (S.D.N.Y. 1989), a Title IX case in which
    the court held that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the
    plaintiff from also bringing an equal-protection claim against the
    New York State Education Department. See 
    id. at 358.
    But Sharif
    does not provide support for Egerdahl's argument. The plaintiff in
    Sharif sought an injunction against the Commissioner of Education.
    Sharif is simply an example of the Ex parte Young, 
    209 U.S. 123
    (1908), exception to the Eleventh Amendment, which permits suits
    against state officials for "prospective injunctive relief to
    prevent a continuing violation of federal law." Green v. Mansour,
    
    474 U.S. 64
    , 68 (1985).
    -8-
    628, 635 (8th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Forbes v. Arkansas
    Educ. Television Communication Network Found., 
    22 F.3d 1423
    (8th Cir.) (en
    banc), cert. denied, 
    115 S. Ct. 500
    (1994).        Citing Nix and DeYoung, the
    District Court held that because Egerdahl's amended complaint did not
    indicate that she was suing Kuznik, Schmidt, and Krause in their personal
    capacities,    Egerdahl   sued   these    defendants   only   in    their   official
    capacities.
    Egerdahl asserts that because the caption and body of her complaint
    referred to Kuznik, Schmidt, and Krause by name rather than by official
    position, her complaint provided these three defendants with ample notice
    that she was suing them in their personal capacities.         Egerdahl also points
    out that in her response to the motions of Kuznik, Schmidt, and Krause to
    dismiss her § 1981 and § 1983 claims, she asked the District Court to
    construe her amended complaint as seeking damages from the defendants in
    their personal capacities.       Egerdahl contends that this request provided
    the defendants with sufficient notice.         We reject both arguments.        Nix
    requires that a plaintiff's complaint contain a clear statement of her wish
    to sue defendants in their personal capacities.        Neither a cryptic hint in
    a plaintiff's complaint nor a statement made in response to a motion to
    dismiss is sufficient.
    Egerdahl also argues that the District Court erred by not permitting
    her to correct her omission by amending her complaint a second time.             The
    decision whether to allow a party to amend her complaint "is left to the
    sound discretion of the district courts."        Humphreys v. Roche Biomedical
    Laboratories, Inc., 
    990 F.2d 1078
    , 1081 (8th Cir. 1993).           A district court
    may refuse to grant leave to amend if the plaintiff had an earlier
    opportunity to cure a defect in her complaint but failed to do so.           Wright,
    Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1487, at 643-45 (2d ed.
    1990); see, e.g., Smith v. Ayres, 
    845 F.2d 1360
    , 1366 (5th Cir. 1988).
    Egerdahl had such an opportunity when she amended her complaint the first
    time.    Moreover, six days before Egerdahl
    -9-
    amended her complaint, Kuznik and Schmidt filed a motion to dismiss which
    cited    Nix and DeYoung and, thus, informed Egerdahl how to sue the
    defendants in their personal capacities.    In light of Egerdahl's lack of
    diligence, we do not think that the District Court abused its discretion
    by denying her leave to amend her complaint a second time.
    IV.
    For these reasons, we affirm the District Court's dismissal of
    Egerdahl's § 1981, § 1983, and equal-protection claims, but reverse its
    dismissal of Egerdahl's Title VI and Title IX claims.   We remand this cause
    to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -10-