Doherty v. Bice
| Decision Date | 16 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | 18-cv-10898 (NSR) |
| Parties | JASON DOHERTY, Plaintiff, v. PATRICIA BICE, individually and as Dean of Student Affairs at Purchase College, State University of New York; JARED STAMMER, individually and as Conduct Officer for Purchase College, State University of New York; and QUI QUI BALASCIO, individually and as Associate Dean for Student Affairs for Purchase College, State University of New York, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Jason Doherty ("Plaintiff" or "Doherty") commenced the instant action on November 21, 2018. (See Complaint, ECF No. 1; Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl."), ECF No. 17.) In this action, Plaintiff alleges claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 ("ADA"), against Defendants Patricia Bice, Jared Stammer, and Qui Qui Balascio (together, "Defendants"). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants denied him due process in relation to the issuance of no contact orders and failed to comply with the disability accommodation and antidiscrimination requirements of the ADA.
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (See ECF No. 29.) For the following reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I. Factual Allegations
The following facts are derived from the Amended Complaint and are taken as true and constructed in the light most favorable to pro se Plaintiff for the purposes of this motion. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220, 230 (2d Cir. 2016).
A court is generally confined to the facts alleged in the complaint for the purposes of considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6). Cortec Indus. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 47 (2d Cir. 1991). A court may, however, consider documents attached to the complaint, statements or documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, matters of which judicial notice may be taken, public records, and documents that the plaintiff either possessed or knew about, and relied upon, in bringing the suit. See Kleinman v. Elan Corp., 706 F.3d 145, 152 (2d Cir. 2013).
Plaintiff is a nineteen-year-old student attending Purchase College, State University of New York ("SUNY Purchase"). (Am. Compl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff has Asperger Syndrome, and has been classified as a disabled student. (Id. ¶ 7.) Prior to attending SUNY Purchase, while in high school, Plaintiff participated in programs at Putnam Northern Westchester BOCES where he had contentious interactions with Casper Horsfield a/k/a Chelsea Horsfield ("Horsfield"). (Id. ¶ 9.)
Plaintiff began attending SUNY Purchase as a freshman and attended freshman orientation in August 2017. (Id. ¶ 10.) During the orientation period, Plaintiff met a number of other freshman students, including Alexa Newman ("Newman"). (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff went with Newman to her room with other students, and was surprised to see Horsfield, who wasNewman's roommate. (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff exited the room with Newman and some other students, then tried to re-enter. (Id. ¶ 13.) Horsfield yelled at Plaintiff to "get out." (Id.) Plaintiff stepped away from the room and Horsfield closed the door and locked it. (Id. ¶ 14.)
A few minutes later, two campus police officers approached Plaintiff and his friend while they were standing in the hallway and asked for their IDs. (Id. at 15.) Plaintiff asked the police officers what he did wrong, and in response one of the officers started yelling at Plaintiff—the officer told Plaintiff to leave, and that if he did not, then Plaintiff would be arrested, a restraining order against him would be issued, and he would not be allowed in the dorms. (Id. ¶ 16.)
Plaintiff, as a result of his Asperger's, was frightened, intimidated, and afraid for his safety, and immediately left the building and called his mother. (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff was worried and concerned that he was going to jail. (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff proceeded to the Office for Students with Disabilities and stayed there until his parents arrived, and he left the orientation. (Id. ¶¶ 19-20.)
Later that day, Plaintiff received a call form Defendant Jared Stammer ("Stammer"), SUNY Purchase's Conduct Officer for Community Standards. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 21.) Stammer advised Plaintiff that three of the female students had filed do not contact orders against him; Stammer sent Plaintiff emails of the no contact orders (the "No Contact Orders"). (Id. ¶¶ 21, 29.) The individuals who requested the contact orders were Horsfield, Newman, and a third student, Casey O'Riordan ("O'Riordan"). (Id. ¶ 22.) Plaintiff alleges he has never met O'Riordan andwould not recognize her. (Id. ¶ 23.) Thereafter, the fact that Plaintiff had no contact orders issued against him was posted on a community online chat room. (Id. ¶ 24.)
In or about August 2017, SUNY Purchase's website stated the following with regard to no contact orders:
In cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct, sex discrimination, domestic violence, dating violence, and/or stalking, when the accused is a student, the college may issue a "No Contact Order," meaning that attempts to contact the complainant is a violation of college policy subject to additional conduct charges. Additionally, if the accused and complainant observe each other in a public place, it is the responsibility of the accused to leave the area immediately and without directly contacting the complainant.
(Id. ¶ 28.)
The No Contact Orders provided to Plaintiff included an email address and phone number to contact the Office of Community Standards should Plaintiff "have any questions about a No Contact order or wish to have [sic] review of the terms of the No Contact Order." (Id. ¶ 29.) At the time the No Contact Orders were filed against Plaintiff, SUNY Purchase did not have any specific appeal mechanism, nor was there any hearing or other process available to challenge the issuance of the No Contact Orders either prior to or after the issuance of the orders. (Id. ¶¶ 26, 30.) In addition, SUNY Purchase did not require any factual assertion for the issuance of no contact orders, and no reason was given for why they were issued. (Id. ¶¶ 27, 30.) No complaints were filed alleging that Doherty had violated the Code of Conduct or engaged in any other wrongful conduct, and the campus police did not file any charges against Plaintiff, nor did they make any factual inquires to Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 31.)
Plaintiff requested review of the No Contact Orders, and also indicated that he believed that because of his disability, he was being discriminated against. (Id. ¶ 32.) Plaintiff wasinformed by Qui Qui Balascio ("Balascio"), Associate Dean for Student Affairs, and Patricia Bice ("Bice"), Dean of Student Affairs, that SUNY Purchase's process was followed with the issuance of the No Contact Orders, that he was not entitled to challenge or contest the issuance of the No Contact Orders, and that they would not be vacated. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 6, 33.)
Subsequent to the issuance of the No Contact Orders against Plaintiff, SUNY Purchase adopted rules and procedures to review no contact orders. (Am. Compl. ¶ 35.) These new rules and procedures were not applied to Plaintiff, and the request to remove the No Contact Orders from his file and to have them dismissed was unsuccessful. (Id. ¶ 36.)
As a result of the issuance of the no contact orders and his disability, Plaintiff suffers great anxiety and depression, has difficulty going to class or utilizing SUNY Purchase's facilities for fear of being arrested, and is afraid to socialize with other students. (Id. ¶ 34.) Further, Plaintiff's ability to perform academically has been disrupted because he is in a class with one of the students for whom a no contact order has been issued. (Id. ¶ 49.)
To survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007)). Factual allegations must "nudge [a plaintiff's] claim from conceivable to plausible." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim is plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts which allow the court to draw a reasonable inference the defendant is liable. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. To assess the sufficiency of a complaint, the court is "not required to credit conclusory allegations or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations." Rothstein v. UBS AG, 708 F.3d 82, 94 (2d Cir.2013). While legal conclusions may provide the "framework of a complaint," "threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.
A claim is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate it pursuant to statute or constitutional authority. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). In resolving a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a district court may refer to evidence outside the pleadings. See Kamen v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 791 F.2d 1006, 1011 (2d Cir. 1986). A lack of standing and a failure to exhaust administrative remedies constitute jurisdictional defects and may be addressed through a Rule 12(b)(1) motion. Johnson v. Benheim, 2001 WL 799569 at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2001) (internal citation omitted). Plaintiff bears the burden of...
To continue reading
Request your trial