The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge
Plaintiff, Shawn Turner ("Plaintiff"), commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on October 12, 2007 against the East Meadow School District ("Defendant" or "District") alleging, inter alia, a violation of Equal Protection through discriminatory practices in providing education to prisoners in the District. Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The following facts are set forth in the Complaint. Plaintiff is an African-American male who is incarcerated at the Nassau County Correctional Center. At the time of filing, Plaintiff was thirty-eight years old. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant denied him the opportunity to obtain a General Education Development ("GED") certification because of his age and race. As evidence of these discriminatory practices, Plaintiff claims that a fellow inmate, who was a thirty-one year old Hispanic man, was permitted to obtain his GED.
Plaintiff has submitted two grievances regarding his denial of educational services. The prison Grievance Coordinator denied both grievances. Plaintiff has failed to take any further action to appeal the decision of the Grievance Coordinator and instead filed this complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts that his "[h]uman,[c]ivil and [c]onstitutional [r]ights" were violated. (Id.)
I. Standard on Motion to Dismiss
On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must satisfy a "flexible 'plausibility standard,' which obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible." Iqbal vv Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2007). The Complaint "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed. 2d 1965 (2007). The Court does not require "heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974.
In applying this standard, the district court must accept the factual allegations set forth in the Complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff. See Cleveland v. Caplaw Enter., 448 F.3d 518, 521 (2d Cir. 2006); Nechis v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 421 F.3d 96, 100 (2d Cir. 2005). Additionally, the Court is confined to "the allegations contained within the four corners of the complaint." Pani v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, 152 F.3d 67, 71 (2d Cir. 1998.) However, the Court may examine "any written instrument attached to [the complaint] or any statements or documents incorporated in it by reference" as well as any document on which the complaint relies heavily. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152-153 (2d Cir. 2002). "Of course, it may also consider matters of which judicial notice may be taken under Fed. R. Evid. 201." Kramer v. Time Warner, Inc., 837 F.2d 767,773 (2d Cir. 1991).
The Court is mindful that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and thus his claims must be read generously. Notwithstanding the liberal pleading standards granted to a pro se Plaintiff, all complaints must contain at least "some minimum level of factual support for their claims." Alfaro Motors, Inc. v. Ward, 814 F.2d 883, 887 (2d Cir. 1987).
Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a claimant is only required to give "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Geisler v. Petrocelli, 616 F.2d 636, 640 (2d Cir. 1980) ("The pleading of additional evidence is not only unnecessary, but in contravention of proper pleading procedure."). "Although the rule encourages brevity, the complaint must say enough to give the defendant 'fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 ...