Tarikh Demekpe v. Board of Trustees of the Calif , 551 F. App'x 338 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TARIKH DEMEKPE, No. 12-55562
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01177-DDP-
MLG
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MEMORANDUM*
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Tarikh Demekpe, a former college student, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument, and therefore, denies Demekpe’s request for oral argument.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
violations related to an unsuccessful appeal to change one of his grades. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Darensburg v. Metro.
Transp. Comm’n, 636 F.3d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Demekpe
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant denied
Demekpe ample notice of its position regarding the basis for his grade or an
opportunity to be heard about why it should be changed. See Bd. of Curators of
Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 85-87 (1978) (due process does not require
a formal hearing for an adverse academic decision, but only prior oral or written
notice to the student and an opportunity to present his side of the story); see also
Regents of the Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 225 (1985) (courts should
show deference to the faculty’s professional judgment regarding academic
decisions absent evidence that the decisions resulted from bad faith or constituted
such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to show that
judgment was not exercised).
The district court also properly granted summary judgment to the extent that
Demekpe sought damages because claims against a state or its instrumentalities are
barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. See Stanley v. Trs. of Cal.
State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129, 1133 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that the Trustees of
2 12-55562
California State University “are an arm of the state that can properly lay claim to
sovereign immunity”).
We reject Demekpe’s contentions regarding the magistrate judge’s alleged
bias, the appeals board chairman’s alleged lack of impartiality, and the need for
subpoenas to obtain evidence documenting unfairness in the appeals process.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-55562