The opinion of the court was delivered by: MCAVOY
This bizarre civil rights case has a long and convoluted history. Plaintiff is a New Jersey resident who has sought to take the New York State Bar Exam. Plaintiff's application to take the New York State Bar Exam was denied by the New York State Board of Law Examiners because Plaintiff's law school, Seton Hall University School of Law ("Seton Hall"), refused to forward a "Law School Certificate of Attendance" and a certification of the applicant's handwriting, which are required to take the exam. Seton Hall allegedly refused to provide the necessary certifications because Plaintiff failed to satisfy the residency requirements of the school for graduation.
The following facts are taken from a decision in a related case that Plaintiff filed in the Southern District of New York. See Anonymous v. Kaye, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15533, 1995 WL 617795 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), aff'd, 104 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 1996). Apparently, Plaintiff was a night student at Seton Hall. In the summer of 1992, a Seton Hall Professor determined that Plaintiff had plagiarized on a take-home final exam. The Professor reported the plagiarism to Associate Dean Michael J. Zimmer. Zimmer met with Plaintiff and determined that Plaintiff would receive a failing grade in the class and would be suspended from the law school for one year. Plaintiff appealed to the law school's Probation and Grievance Committee, which upheld the determination that Plaintiff had plagiarized but recommended that the suspension be re-examined. Dean Riccio decided not to implement the suspension.
In August of 1993, Plaintiff sued Zimmer for defamation in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County. Plaintiff alleged that Zimmer's letter to Plaintiff, stating the findings of plagiarism, was defamatory. Plaintiff's lawsuit was based on the premise that Plaintiff should not have been disciplined for plagiarism. Plaintiff did not sue Riccio or Seton Hall at that time. On June 30, 1994, the Superior Court granted Zimmer summary judgment on his claims. Plaintiff appealed that judgment, which was affirmed. See Barth v. Zimmer, No. A-6632-93T2 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. March 24, 1995).
In 1994, Plaintiff sued many of the same defendants named here in the Southern District of New York. On July 25, 1994, Judge Keenan denied Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction allowing him to take the July 1994 New York Bar exam. See Anonymous v. Kaye, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10145, 1994 WL 389157 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). On October 19, 1995, Judge Keenan dismissed the action before him as against Judges Kaye, Bellacosa, Ciparick, Levine, Simons, Smith, and Titone for improper venue. See Anonymous v. Kaye, 1995 WL 617795, at *1. Judge Keenan also dismissed Plaintiff's complaint against Justices Wilentz, Clifford, Handler, Pollock, O'Hern, Garibaldi, and Stein of the New Jersey Supreme Court for lack of personal jurisdiction and against Seton Hall University School of Law and Dean Ronald R. Riccio on res judicata grounds. Id. Plaintiff appealed the judgment, which was affirmed via summary order. Anonymous v. Kaye, 104 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff's Complaint contains twenty-eight causes of action. Defendants include, inter alia, seven judges on the New York Court of Appeals, seven justices on the New Jersey Supreme Court, the former Attorney General for the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff's former law school and law school professors, and the American Bar Association. Plaintiff's rambling Complaint alleges violations of his constitutional rights to interstate travel, due process, and equal protection, as well as RICO violations, conspiracy, injury to reputation, breach of contract, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and antitrust violations. Plaintiff seeks damages "in an amount not less than seven billion dollars."
The present motion to dismiss has been brought by the New York State Attorney General's Office on behalf of the Judges of the New York Court of Appeals, the New York State Board of Law Examiners and its members, the " New York Rules for Admission to the Bar 22 NYCRR 520 et seq.," and the "Rules of the New York State Board of Law Examiners § 6000 et seq." (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the New York Defendants").
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that a cause of action shall be dismissed if the complaint fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." In analyzing a motion to dismiss, the facts alleged by the plaintiff are assumed to be true and must be liberally construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See, e.g., Easton v. Sundram, 947 F.2d 1011, 1014-15 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 911, 118 L. Ed. 2d 548, 112 S. Ct. 1943 (1992). While a court need not accept mere conclusions of law, a court should accept the pleader's description of what happened along with any conclusions that can reasonably be drawn therefrom. See Murray v. City of Milford, 380 F.2d 468 (2d Cir. 1967).
Furthermore, when a party makes a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court will limit its consideration to the facts asserted on the face of the complaint. Cosmas v. Hassett, 886 F.2d 8, 13 (2d Cir. 1989). A complaint will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears, beyond a doubt, that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle her to relief. See Wanamaker v. Columbian Rope Co., 740 F. Supp. 127 (N.D.N.Y. 1990).
With this standard in mind, the Court will address the sufficiency of Plaintiff's Complaint.
A. Eleventh Amendment Immunity
At this point in the history of our republic, it is clear that principles of federalism limit this Court's jurisdiction. For example, the Eleventh Amendment bars most claims against a state or an agency of the state in federal court absent either waiver of immunity and consent to suit by the state, or abrogation of constitutional immunity by Congress. See, e.g., Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 79 L. Ed. 2d 67, 104 S. Ct. 900 (1984); Welch v. Texas Department of Highways and Public Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 107 S. Ct. 2941, 2945, 97 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1987); Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 105 S. Ct. 3142, 3145-46, 87 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1985). A suit against a state official is regarded as one against the state itself when the relief sought against the official would operate against the state. Pennhurst, 104 S. Ct. at 906-08. In addition, a federal court may not grant relief, whether prospective or retroactive, against state officials ...