Guoqing Chen v. Dianne Durham and Akinlolu O. Ojo

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas considers defendants’ motion to dismiss a pro se plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from post-tenure reviews at the University of Kansas School of Medicine. The opinion addresses Eleventh Amendment immunity, procedural due process, equal protection, substantive due process, and qualified immunity. The court dismisses the substantive due process claim with prejudice and dismisses the official-capacity claim seeking disclosure of post-tenure review reports for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the provided text does not include the complete disposition of all claims.

Holdings

1. The Eleventh Amendment barred Chen's official-capacity claim seeking an order compelling disclosure of the 2023 and 2025 post-tenure-review reports because that relief sought to redress completed past harm rather than prevent an ongoing violation through prospective relief.
2. To the extent Chen intended to assert a substantive due process claim, he abandoned it by failing to respond to defendants' argument for dismissal, and the court dismissed it with prejudice.
3. Chen failed to state a procedural due process claim because he remained a tenured professor and did not allege that defendants had taken steps to terminate his employment or otherwise deprived him of a protected property interest.
4. Chen failed to state a class-of-one equal protection claim because the Supreme Court has held that the class-of-one theory does not apply to public employment decisions, and Chen did not allege discrimination based on membership in a protected class.
5. Durham was entitled to qualified immunity on Chen's individual-capacity claims because Chen failed to plausibly allege a violation of a constitutional right.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment barred Chen's official-capacity claim seeking disclosure of the post-tenure-review committee reports.
2. Whether Chen plausibly alleged a procedural due process violation based on the triggered reviews, withheld reports, denial of an adviser, negative personnel evaluations, and alleged effects on his tenured employment.
3. Whether Chen plausibly alleged a class-of-one equal protection claim based on allegedly inconsistent enforcement of post-tenure-review policies against public employees.
4. Whether Chen's passing references to substantive due process stated a claim or resulted in abandonment of that claim.
5. Whether Durham was entitled to qualified immunity on Chen's individual-capacity claims.

Disposition

dismissed