Nonprecedential Disposition

*Afterexaminingthebriefsandrecord,wehaveconcludedthatoralargumentis
unnecessary.Thus,theappealissubmittedonthebriefsandrecord.SeeFED. R. A PP. P.
34(a)(2)(C).
United States Court of Appeals
FortheSeventhCircuit
Chicago,Illinois60604
SubmittedDecember16,2010 *
DecidedDecember16,2010
Before
JOHNL.COFFEY,CircuitJudge
JOELM.FLAUM,CircuitJudge
ANNCLAIREWILLIAMS,CircuitJudge
No.102150
BETTIEPULLENWALKER,
PlaintiffAppellant,
v.
ROOSEVELTUNIVERSITY,etal.,
DefendantsAppellees.
AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrict
CourtfortheNorthernDistrictofIllinois,
EasternDivision.
No.09C5426
JohnW.Darrah,
Judge.
ORDER
BettiePullenWalkerfiledthisbreachofcontractsuitagainstRooseveltUniversity,
theuniversity’sBoardofTrustees,andseveralofitscurrentandformeremployees.Pullen
Walkerclaimsthatthedefendantsbreachedanimpliedcontractgoverningthetermsofher
enrollmentwhentheuniversityexpelledherfromadoctoralprogramin2001.Herlatest
action,theseventhinaseriesofsuitsarisingfromtheexpulsion,wasbroughtinstatecourt
butremovedbythedefendantsontheassertedbasisthatitstatesafederalclaimunderTitle
NONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITION
Tobecitedonlyinaccordancewith
Fed.R.App.P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No.102150 Page2
IXoftheEducationAmendmentActof1972,see20U.S.C.§1681(a).Thedefendantsthen
movedtodismissthecomplaintonthegroundofclaimpreclusion.Thedistrictcourt
grantedthemotion,andPullenWalkerappeals,arguingthatthedefendantsimproperly
removedthesuit.
PullenWalkerfashionedhercomplaintasa“refiling”ofabreachofcontractaction
shebroughtinstatecourtagainstthesamedefendantsin2005.Thedefendantshad
removedthatcase,too,butafterconcludingthatthecomplaintraisednofederalquestion,
thedistrictcourtremandedthesuittostatecourt,wherePullenWalkervoluntarily
dismissedit.Thecurrentcomplaint,captioned“Plaintiff’scomplaintfiledwithinoneyear
ofvoluntarydismissal,”isPullenWalker’sattempttoresurrecther2005case;itusesthe
samecasenumberasthe2005complaint,andoverthecourseofits15pagesallegesthe
samefactualdetailsandlegaltheories,whichboildowntoaclaimthatPullenWalkerwas
deniedthebenefitsofanimpliedcontractwhentheuniversityexpelledheronfalsecharges,
afterashaminvestigation,andinviolationofitsownpolicies.Thecomplaintidentifiestwo
Illinoisstatutesasprovidingacauseofaction,see735 ILL. COMP. STAT .5/13207;815ILL.
COMP. STAT .505/1,andrefersrepeatedlytoIllinoiscontractlawand,morebroadly,the
contractualrelationshipbetweenauniversityanditsstudents.Theonlyreferencetofederal
lawcomesonpageeight,andreadsasfollows:
Congressenactedlegislation(1972)forprotectionofstudentsrightsin
educationacrosslevelsthatrequiresinstitutionstoabidebythepolicyor
standardstheythemselvesestablish.ThismandatediffersfromtheSupreme
Courtrulingwhichonlyaddressestherightsofwomenineducation.The
enactmentbyCongressstatesinrelevantpart:
NopersonintheUnitedStatesshallonthebasisofsexbe
excludedfromparticipationin,bedeniedthebenefitsof,orbe
subjectedtodiscriminationunderanyeducationprogramor
activityreceivingfederalassistance.20U.S.C.§1681etseq.
20.Alwaysfacingthevagariesofsocietybasedongender,race,andage,the
plaintiffhaspersistedinthislegislationwithfaiththatthisidealwillstand,
andtopreserveacherishedlegacyasanalumnaeoftheuniversity.The
plaintiffhasenduredwithfaiththatjusticewillprevail.
Onthebasisofthislanguagealone,thedefendantsremovedtheactiontodistrict
court.ThenoticeofremovalassertsthatPullenWalkerclaimsdiscriminatoryexpulsion
under20U.S.C.§1681(a).PullenWalkerdisputedthatcontentioninamotiontoremand,
whichshemislabeledasa“motiontoanswerdefendants’reply.”Sheexplainedthatshe

-- 2 of 4 --

No.102150 Page3
meantforhersuittobearefilingofher2005complaint,whichraisesnofederalissue,onlya
statelawcontractclaim.Thedistrictcourtgrantedthemotioninabriefminuteorder
withoutmentioningsubjectmatterjurisdictionorgivingeffecttothesubstanceofthe
document,whichconcludeswithPullenWalker’srequestthatthedistrictcourt“grant
Remand”tothestatecourt.Inalaterdecisionthedistrictcourtaddressedthemeritsand
grantedthedefendants’motiontodismissonthebasisofresjudicata.
PullenWalkermaintainsonappealthathercasebelongsinstatecourt.Although
sheadmitstoraisingTitleIXclaimsinprevioussuits,sheinsiststhatthisactioninvolvesno
federalquestion,andissimplyarefilingofher2005breachofcontractclaim,which,she
notes,wasdeemedbyafederalcourttosoundonlyinstatelaw.
Congressauthorizestheremovalofanycivilactionbroughtinstatecourtoverwhich
federalcourtshaveoriginaljurisdiction.See28U.S.C.§1441(a);Hukicv.AuroraLoanServ.,
588F.3d420,427(7thCir.2009).Whentheassertedbasisofremovalisafederalquestion,
28U.S.C.§1331,thecomplaintmustestablishthatfederallawcreatesarighttorelieforthat
arighttoreliefturnsontheresolutionofafederalquestion.SeeFranchiseTaxBd.v.Constr.
LaborersVacationTrust,463U.S.1,1011(1983);Hartv.WalMartStores,Inc.,Assoc.Health
andWelfarePlan,360F.3d674,678(7thCir.2004).Thefederalgroundassertedtoestablish
jurisdictionmustbemorethanincidentaltoastatelawclaim,seeTheFairv.KohlerDie&
SpecialtyCo.,228U.S.22,25(1913);Johnsonv.Orr,551F.3d564,570(7thCir.2008);Williams
v.AztarIndianaGamingCorp.,351F.3d294,298(7thCir.2003),andtheincantationofa
federalstatutewillnotautomaticallytriggerfederaljurisdiction,seeHoweryv.AllstateIns.
Co.,243F.3d912,91718(5thCir.2001);Rainsv.CriterionSys.,Inc.,80F.3d339,34344(9th
Cir.1996).
TheremovalofPullenWalker’scomplaintwasimproper,andthedistrictcourterred
innotremandingthelawsuittostatecourt.Areasonablereadingofthecomplaintconfirms
thatthisisacontractdisputewithnobasisinfederallaw.Thecomplaintisdevoted
exclusivelytothefactualdetailssurroundingtheallegedbreach:themanufactured
violationsoftheconductcode,theshaminvestigation,thearbitraryexpulsion.Thebreach
ofcontractclaimneitherincorporatesanelementoffederallawnorturnsontheresolution
ofafederalquestion.ThementionofTitleIXisfleeting,vague,anduntetheredfromfacts
thatcouldsupportafindingofdiscrimination.Atmostthereferenceisanappealtopublic
policyprinciplesembodiedbythestatute,butthatisnotthesameasinvokingtheprovision
asarighttorelief.SeeRains,80F.3dat34344(explainingthatcomplaintdrawingon
federalstatuteasasourceofpublicpolicydidnotraisefederalquestion).
HadPullenWalkerraisedafederalissue,hercomplaintpresumablywouldhave
borecloserresemblancetohertwopreviousTitleIXclaims,inwhichthefederalquestion

-- 3 of 4 --

No.102150 Page4
wasconspicuousandwellpleaded.Forinstance,herfifthsuit,afivecountcomplaintfiled
infederalcourtwiththehelpofcounsel,assertsearlyonthatthesuitseeksreliefunderTitle
IXfordiscriminatoryexpulsion,andidentifiesasoneofthecounts“violationofTitleIX.”
Complaintat15,PullenWalkerv.RooseveltUniv.,2006WL1843364(N.D.Ill.June28,2006).
Likewisewithhersixthsuit,aproseactionfiledinfederalcourt,whichassertsthat“the
federalquestionarisesinthiscaseagainstdiscriminationbyRooseveltUniversity,”and
goesonnotonlytociteTitleIX,buttoallegefactssupportingaviolationofthestatute,
specifically“discriminationbasedonsexjustifiedbymanufacturingafalse...sexist
charge.”Complaintat2,PullenWalkerv.RooseveltUniv.,No.08C2299,(N.D.Ill.May8,
2008).Contrastthecomplaintinthiscase,whichfocusesexclusivelyonhercontractual
relationshipwiththeuniversity,whichcontainsonlyapassingreferencetoTitleIX,and
whichfailstodrawanexusbetweenthefederalstatuteandanallegationofdiscrimination.
WeVACATEthejudgmentofthedistrictcourtandREMANDwithinstructionsthat
thecaseberemandedtostatecourt.

-- 4 of 4 --