Plaintiff Muzafar Babakr sued defendants Dr. Jacob T. Fowles, Dr. Dorothy M. Daley, Dr. Steven W. Maynard-Moody, Dr. Charles R. Epp, Dr. Heather Getha-Taylor, Dr. Rosemary O’Leary, Dr. Carl Lejuez, Dr. Kristine Latta, University of Kansas, Dr. Holly T. Goerdel, and the Estate of Reginald L. Robinson in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims of race and national origin discrimination under Title VI, First Amendment retaliation and due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and civil conspiracy under Kansas state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and Babakr appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Factual Overview
Muzafar Babakr, an international student from Iraq, enrolled in the University of Kansas School of Public Affairs and Administration doctoral program in 2013. To complete the program, he was required to pass two comprehensive written exams. After passing the first exam, Babakr failed the Specialization Exam on his first attempt in 2015 and was given a second chance to pass. Despite multiple requests to change his area of specialization and advisor, the School denied his requests. Babakr refused to sit for the exam again and was dismissed from the program in 2017.
Legal Analysis
Orders Striking Response to Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Reconsideration: The Tenth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to strike Babakr’s untimely response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and deny his motion for reconsideration. The court held that Babakr’s explanations for the delay did not meet the excusable neglect standard, given his dilatory litigation conduct and failure to comply with the court’s orders.
Title VI Retaliation Claim: The district court granted summary judgment on Babakr’s Title VI retaliation claim, finding that he presented no evidence of engaging in protected activity by opposing discrimination based on race or national origin. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that by failing to timely respond to the motion for summary judgment, Babakr confessed the facts set forth in the motion and waived the right to controvert them.
Constitutional and § 1983 Conspiracy Claims: The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on Babakr’s constitutional and § 1983 conspiracy claims on qualified immunity grounds. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that Babakr failed to meet his burden of showing that the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right.
State-Law Conspiracy Claim: The district court granted summary judgment on Babakr’s state-law civil conspiracy claim, finding no evidence that the defendants’ decisions were related to his threat to sue the School. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that Babakr failed to prove that the defendants’ conduct was an unlawful act for the purposes of his state-law conspiracy claim.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants on all of Babakr’s claims.
Schrag on Law 