United States District Court, W.D. New York
DECISION AND ORDER
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD United States District Judge.
Abdulla-rafa Brown ("Plaintiff), proceeding pro
se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
asserting constitutional violations arising out of the
Defendants' purported failure to pay all of his tuition
for classes at Monroe Community College, which caused the
transcript of his grades to be withheld. (Dkt. 10).
Court previously directed Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint, (Dkt. 7), and Plaintiff has done so. (Dkt. 10).
Plaintiffs amended complaint must be screened pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Also before the Court are
Plaintiffs motions to amend his complaint to: increase the
amount of damages claimed (Dkt. 11); add factual allegations
(Dkt. 12); add a punitive damages claim (Dkt. 13); and file
an exhibit (Dkt. 15).
reasons stated below, the amended complaint is dismissed
pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(b), and the motions to amend
12, 2012, Plaintiff attended a seminar during which he
learned about the opportunity to enroll at Monroe Community
College ("MCC"), with financial support in the form
of a grant. (Dkt. 10 at 3). Plaintiff began to discuss the
opportunity with Defendant William Rotenberg
("Rotenberg"), a Career Navigator with Rochester
Works. (Id.). Rotenberg told Plaintiff he had to
only follow Defendant Bradley Stalker's
("Stalker") instructions to enroll. (Id.).
August 17, 2012, Plaintiff enrolled at MCC "in the
presence of. . . Stalker." (Id.). Stalker
instructed Plaintiff to apply for financial aid.
(Id. at 4). Stalker also informed Plaintiff that he
"was entitled to a grant of $2, 100.00 to cover
[P]laintiff s college expenses." (Id.).
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants received money to pay
Plaintiffs grant on November 10, 2012, and made a partial
payment to MCC of $333.33. (Id.). This left
Plaintiff with a deficiency in the tuition owed to MCC of
approximately $1, 722.00. (Id.). Plaintiff asked
Stalker on December 12, 2012, to pay the balance of the
tuition owed, but his request was refused. (Id.).
The tuition balance was never paid, and MCC froze Plaintiffs
grades for the Fall 2012 semester due to the tuition
claims that Defendants violated the Workforce Investment Act
of 1998, 29 U.S.C. §§2801 (since repealed and
replaced, see 29 U.S.C. § 3343) (hereinafter
"WIA"). (Id. at 4, 5 (referencing WIA)).
Plaintiff further claims violations of his constitutional due
process rights. (Id. at 2).
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint Must Be Dismissed
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court must dismiss an action if
it determines that it "(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;
or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In
evaluating the complaint, the Court must accept as true all
of the factual allegations and must draw all inferences in
the plaintiffs favor. Larkin v. Savage, 318 F.3d
138, 139 (2d Cir. 2003). Moreover, "a court is obliged
to construe (pro se] pleadings liberally,
particularly when they allege civil rights violations."
McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir.
even pleadings submitted pro se must meet the notice
requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73, 77-78 (2d
Cir. 2004). "Specific facts are not necessary, "
and the plaintiff "need only 'give the defendant
fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.'" Erichson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Ail. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted); see also Boykin v.
Keycorp, 521 F.3d 202, 213 (2d Cir. 2008) (explaining
that, "even after Twombly, dismissal of a pro
se claim as insufficiently pleaded is appropriate only in the
most unsustainable of cases").