Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2d 1346
60 USLW 2806, 75 Ed. Law Rep. 1045
Donald L. Kahl (Fred M. Buxton, with him on the briefs) of Hall, Estill,
Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C., Tulsa, Okl., for defendantsappellees.
Before HOLLOWAY and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and OWEN, Senior District
Judge.*
ground that no private right of action exists under Title IV; dismissed Count III
on the ground that plaintiff had failed to state a claim of intentional
discrimination;1 and declined to retain jurisdiction over the remaining pendent
state claims. We agree that no private cause of action exists as to Counts I and
II and, accordingly, we affirm.2
6
Pursuant to Title IV of the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq., and
the regulations promulgated thereunder, 34 C.F.R. 668 et seq., the Secretary
of Education has authority to enforce the provisions of the Act. See 20 U.S.C.
1070(b), 1071, 1082, 1094. If an institution violates a provision of Title IV,
the Secretary has the authority to impose a fine on the institution, 34 C.F.R.
668.84(a); to suspend the eligibility of an institution to participate in any or all
of the Title IV programs, 34 C.F.R. 668.85(a)(1); or to terminate or limit the
eligibility of an institution to participate in Title IV programs, 34 C.F.R.
668.86(a). See also 20 U.S.C. 1094(c)(2)(A).
9
10
11
The express language of the Higher Education Act, and the regulations
promulgated thereunder, does not create a private cause of action, and there is
nothing in the Act's language, structure or legislative history from which a
congressional intent to provide such a remedy can be implied. No provision
provides for student enforcement or entitlement to civil damages. Rather, as
discussed above, Title IV's provisions demonstrate that Congress vested
exclusive enforcement authority in the Secretary of Education. To imply a
private right on the part of a student would conflict with the enforcement
powers of the Secretary and thus would be inconsistent with the underlying
purpose of the statute.4 See Graham v. Security Savings & Loan, 125 F.R.D.
687, 693-94 (N.D.Ind.1989), aff'd, 914 F.2d 909 (7th Cir.1990); St. Mary, 724
F.Supp. at 808.
12
The Honorable Richard Owen, Senior United States District Court Judge for
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation
The District Court granted plaintiff leave of twenty days to amend his claim of
discrimination; however, plaintiff did not amend and does not here challenge
the District Court's dismissal of Count III
The District Court properly dismissed plaintiff's fourth and fifth pendent state
claims and, without discussion, we hereby affirm
The Pell Grant Program, the Guaranteed Student Loan Program, and the
Supplemental Loans to Students Program