Lei Ke V. Drexel University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Opinions of the United 2013 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-18-2013 Lei Ke v. Drexel University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013 Recommended Citation "Lei Ke v. Drexel University" (2013). 2013 Decisions. 547. https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/547 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. **AMENDED DLD-262 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ Nos. 13-1776 & 13-2263 ___________ IN RE: LEI KE, Petitioner in No. 13-2263 LEI KE, Appellant in No. 13-1776 v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY; JOHN FRY; RICHARD HOMAN; SAMUEL PARRISH; AMY FUCHS; JENNIFER HAMILTON; ANTHONY SAHAR ____________________________________ On Appeal from and on a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 2-11-cv-06708) District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky ____________________________________ No. 13-1776 Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6; No. 13-2263 Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. May 31, 2013 Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : July 18, 2013) _________ OPINION _________ PER CURIAM Lei Ke appeals from various orders entered by the District Court and has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking interlocutory review. In C.A. No. 13-1776, we will affirm the District Court’s order denying Ke’s motion for a preliminary injunction but will dismiss the appeal as to presently unappealable orders. In C.A. No. 13-2263, we will deny Ke’s mandamus petition. We will also deny Ke’s motions for other relief. I. Ke was a third-year medical student at the Drexel University College of Medicine when he was dismissed, ostensibly for poor academic performance. Ke later filed suit pro se against Drexel University and six individuals, including University President John Fry, seeking reinstatement. In general, Ke alleges that his dismissal resulted from retaliation and discrimination on the basis of his Chinese race and national origin. The District Court granted Ke’s request for appointment of counsel but Ke later elected to proceed pro se. Ke ultimately filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting the nine causes of action set forth in the margin.1 Defendants filed a motion for partial dismissal of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), and Ke filed both a motion for summary judgment and a motion for a preliminary injunction (his second) seeking immediate reinstatement. The District Court held a hearing on defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and Ke’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Following 1 They are: (1) intentional discrimination, (2) willful retaliation, and (3) hostile educational environment, all in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (4) intentional discrimination and (5) willful retaliation, both in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d-2000d-7; (6) violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; (7) discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Pennsylvania Fair Educational Opportunities Act, 24 P.S. § 5004; (8) conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985; and (9) intentional infliction of pain and suffering. 2 two proceedings in this Court,2 the District Court issued its ruling on these motions. First, by order entered March 14, 2013, the District Court denied Ke’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice because discovery had not commenced. (CM/ECF No. 67.) Second, by order entered March 15, 2013, the District Court granted defendants’ partial motion to dismiss and dismissed Counts VI, VII and IX as to all defendants and Counts I and II against defendant Fry only. (CM/ECF No. 69.) Finally, by another order entered March 15, 2013, the District Court denied Ke’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (CM/ECF No. 71.) The case remains ongoing in the District Court and the parties are currently engaged in discovery. Ke filed a notice of appeal from all three orders and also seeks interlocutory review of two of them by way of a mandamus petition. Since Ke filed his appeal, the District Court has denied his motions for an entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) and certification of immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). II. A. Ke’s Mandamus Petition and the Scope of Appeal We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to review the District Court’s denial of Ke’s motion for a preliminary injunction, but we do not have jurisdiction to review the other two orders from which he appeals. With other exceptions not relevant here, our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing “final decisions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A decision generally is final only when it “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 376 (3d Cir. 2005) (quotation 2 Ke filed an appeal from what he mistakenly believed was the denial of his motion for an injunction, which we dismissed (C.A. No. 12-4013), and then a mandamus petition asserting undue delay in ruling on that motion, which we denied (C.A. No. 13-1364). 3 marks omitted). The District Court’s denial of Ke’s motion for summary judgment is not a final order, and is all the less so because the denial was without prejudice. The District Court’s partial dismissal of Ke’s complaint also is not a final order because it did not resolve all claims as to all parties and the District Court has declined to direct the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Appearing to recognize as much, Ke seeks review of these orders by asking us to issue a writ of mandamus reversing them. We decline to do so. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that we have the discretion to grant only if, inter alia, the petitioner has “no other adequate means to attain the relief sought.” Diet Drugs, 418 F.3d at 379. This requirement “emanates from the final judgment rule: mandamus must not be used as a mere substitute for appeal” because doing so would “thwart the Congressional policy against piecemeal appeals.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). That is all that granting mandamus would accomplish in this case. Ke asserts that the partial dismissal of his complaint is “too important” to be denied immediate review, but he does not say why and instead merely argues the merits of the District Court’s decision. Ke has raised nothing suggesting that he cannot obtain effective review of that decision on appeal from a final order, and it is apparent that he can. B. The Denial of Ke’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction We review the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, though we review underlying factual findings for clear error and underlying legal conclusions de novo. See Am. Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Sidamon-Eristoff, 669 F.3d 359, 366 (3d Cir. 2012). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show, inter alia, a likelihood 4 of success on the merits and irreparable harm. See id. “The moving party’s failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits must necessarily result in the denial of a preliminary injunction.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). In this case, the District Court concluded that Ke has not shown a likelihood of succeeding on his remaining claims and that none of the other factors warrant injunctive relief. We perceive no abuse of discretion. Regarding likelihood of success, we agree with the District Court that all of Ke’s remaining claims (with the possible exception discussed below) require him to establish at least an inference that his dismissal was the result of discrimination on the basis of his race or national origin. See, e.g., Storey v. Burns Int’l Sec. Servs., 390 F.3d 760, 764 (3d Cir. 2004) (“Although the prima facie elements of a discrimination claim vary depending on the facts of the case, the plaintiff must generally present evidence that raises an inference of discrimination.”) (quotation marks and internal citation omitted). We further agree that Ke has not shown a likelihood of raising that inference. As the District Court explained, Ke relies on: (1) the allegation that defendant Dr. Sahar, who supervised Ke’s third-year clinical rotation, asked him where he is from and pressed him on the issue after Ke initially stated that he is from Canada; (2) another defendant doctor’s facially race-neutral comments that Ke, inter alia, is “the weirdest guy I’ve ever met. You were weird, strange, truly odd, you scared people”; and (3) alleged disparate treatment of non-Chinese students, including a Middle Eastern student who received different advice than Ke from Dr. Sahar and Caucasian students who were allowed to remain students after also failing tests or rotations. The District Court thoroughly discussed Ke’s allegations and evidence in this regard 5 and concluded that he is unlikely to raise an inference of discrimination given his largely undisputed academic failings and other factors. Among other things, the District Court concluded that Ke is unlikely to show a suggestive temporal proximity between Dr.