In his reply brief, Cingilli urges that, despite an absence of control over any of Cingilli's grades, Professor Chaouat might be able to affect his academic standing because “professors regularly communicate to one another about work-related issues, such as ... troublesome students.” Even treating this generously as an inference one might draw from the Complaint, it is far too speculative to establish an
objectively reasonable chilling effect.
See Klobuchar, 381 F.3d at 791–92. As we noted in a similar situation, “Plaintiffs claim that they have thoroughly described why ... the statute
could be easily manipulated, and the
possible motives police may have to [do so].... Even so, they fail in the key respect of asserting that peace officers
in fact initiate retaliatory prosecution....”
Zanders v. Swanson, 573 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir.2009) (finding no standing for plaintiffs' First Amendment claims). Likewise, in the instant case, there are no factual allegations that Professor Chaouat or other professors at the University of Minnesota in fact reach out to lower the grades of “troublesome” students in classes taught by others. In the same fashion, while President Bruininks
conceivably could intervene to lower Cingilli's grades or deny him other academic benefits, there is no allegation that he
in fact engages in such practices. As a result, Cingilli has not “nudged [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.”
Id. (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).