Xu v. Matos Rodriguez et al
| Ji Xu |
| Felix V Matos Rodriguez, Kenneth Adams, Philip Gimber and Kathleen Karsten |
| 1:2023cv09506 |
| December 21, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Lois Bloom |
| Rachel P Kovner |
| Civil Rights: Education |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 16, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER: Plaintiff's #1 complaint brings a Title IX claim against four individual school officials. However, "Title IX does not 'authoriz[e] suit[s] against school officials, teachers, and other individuals.'" Sutton v. Stony Brook Univ., No. 21-2055, 2022 WL 4479509, at *2 (2d Cir. Sept. 27, 2022) (quoting Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246, 257 (2009)); see Welcome v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 17-CV-5407 (NGG), 2018 WL 5817156, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2018) (dismissing Title IX claim brought against school principal "in both her individual and official capacity" because a school principal "cannot be held individually liable under Title [IX] because Title [IX] does not provide for individual liability"). If plaintiff wishes, she may, by 3/15/2024, file an amended complaint listing the institutions as the defendants. If no amended complaint is filed, plaintiff is directed to file a letter showing cause by 3/15/2024 why the complaint should not be dismissed because plaintiff is suing individuals under Title IX. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 2/16/2024.(XW)
|
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to Kenneth Adams, Philip Gimber, Kathleen Karsten, Felix V Matos Rodriguez. (VRM) |
|
ORDER: In view of plaintiff's #4 letter in opposition of dismissal, the 1/11/2024 order to show cause is discharged. The Court construes the letter as supplementing plaintiff's #1 complaint. See Mendoza v. Edge, 615 F. Supp. 3d 163, 16667 (E.D.N.Y. 2022) ("[W]here a pro se plaintiff has submitted other papers to the Court, such as legal memoranda, the Court may consider such statements in such papers to supplement or clarify the plaintiff's pleaded allegations." (quotation omitted)). The Clerk of Court is directed to issue summonses against the named defendants, and the United States Marshals Service is directed to serve the summonses, the #1 complaint, plaintiff's #4 letter, and a copy of this Order upon the defendants without prepayment of fees. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 2/8/2024. (XW)
|
| Filing 4 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Ji Xu (IH) |
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: The #2 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. However, plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing by 2/12/2024 why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See Nwoye v. Obama, No. 22-1253, 2023 WL 382950, at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 25, 2023). When a litigant files a lawsuit in forma pauperis, the district court must dismiss the case if it determines that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A pro se plaintiffs complaint must be liberally construed, and... however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted).Plaintiffs complaint brings a sex discrimination claim against various officials of the City University of New York (CUNY) and LaGuardia Community College (LAGCC) under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. Compl. 2-4 (Dkt. #1). But plaintiff does not plead sufficient facts to state a Title IX claim. The complaint alleges in conclusory fashion that while plaintiff was a pregnant student at LAGCC, the director of Nursing Programs discriminated against [p]laintiff and her reasonable, rightful requests for help and even made threats of retaliation against [p]laintiff. Compl. 5. The complaint also alleges, without further factual detail, that CUNY and LAGCC have not handled [p]laintiffs sufferings and complaints justly and that she has been mistreated by the schools. Ibid. Such [t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements are not entitled to be accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. And without more, the complaint does not cross the line between possibility and plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 546. Therefore, plaintiff shall show cause by 2/12/2024 why this action should not be dismissed. If plaintiff fails to respond within the time allowed, the action shall be dismissed and the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close this case. Plaintiff is advised that she may contact the Eastern District of New York's Pro Se Office at (718) 613-2665 or by visiting https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pro-se-office. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 1/11/2024. (XW)
|
| Filing 3 Clerk's Notice Re: Consent. A United States Magistrate Judge has been assigned to this case and is available to conduct all proceedings. In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent, the assigned Magistrate Judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to this Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. Any party may withhold its consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent.The form may also be accessed at the following link: #https://img.nyed.uscourts.gov/files/forms/MJConsentForm.pdf (CV) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Ji Xu. (CV) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Kenneth Adams, Philip Gimber, Kathleen Karsten, Felix V Matos Rodriguez, filed by Ji Xu. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (CV) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
