Doe v. Regents of the University of California, No. 17-56110 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint on Eleventh Amendment immunity, judicial exhaustion, and abstention grounds. The panel granted Regents' request for publication in a concurrently filed order.
A male University of California student filed suit against Regents and others, alleging claims under Title IX, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and state law, after he was disciplined for the sexual assault of a female student during a trip. On the merits, the panel held that the Eleventh Amendment barred plaintiff's California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 petition against Regents and the district court should have dismissed it with prejudice. Furthermore, plaintiff's section 1983 and Title IX claims were precluded because he has failed to exhaust judicial remedies by filing a section 1094.5 writ petition in state court. The panel remanded with instructions to dismiss the section 1094.5 writ claim with prejudice, but without prejudice to refiling in state court, and his section 1983, Title IX, and declaratory relief claims without prejudice.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint on Eleventh Amendment immunity, judicial exhaustion, and abstention grounds, and in a concurrently filed order, the panel granted appellants’ request for publication. Plaintiff, a male University of California student, sued The Regents of the University of California and the assistant dean of students at University of California, Santa Barbara, after he was disciplined for the sexual assault of a female student during a trip to Lake Tahoe. Plaintiff denied the assault and instead asserted that the sexual encounter was consensual. He filed an action against The Regents bringing claims under Title IX, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, and also sought, in his second amended complaint, a writ of administrative mandamus under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5, alleging that the University held an unfair hearing and that its disciplinary hearing was not supported by the evidence. The panel first rejected plaintiff’s assertion that The Regents waived their argument that Eleventh Amendment immunity barred the § 1094.5 petition. The panel then held that Eleventh Amendment principles required dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1094.5 writ petition because the petition involved a state law claim and the prospective injunctive relief DOE V. U.C. REGENTS 3 exception to the Eleventh Amendment bar, as set forth in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), does not apply when a suit seeks relief under state law. The panel exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction over The Regents’ appeal from the order denying dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1983 claims and Title IX claims for failure to exhaust judicial remedies. The panel held that plaintiff’s § 1983 and Title IX claims were precluded because he failed to exhaust judicial remedies by filing a § 1094.5 writ petition in state court. The panel noted that although a plaintiff is not required by statute to file a § 1094.5 petition in state court, in this case the Eleventh Amendment barred plaintiff from filing his writ petition in federal court. Therefore, plaintiff had not exhausted his judicial remedies. The panel reversed the judgment and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss plaintiff’s § 1094.5 writ claim with prejudice, but without prejudice to refiling in state court, and his § 1983, Title IX, and declaratory relief claims without prejudice.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 27, 2018.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.