District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Rotenberg, a career navigator with Rochester Works, allegedly told Brown that to enroll at Monroe Community College (MCC) he need only follow co-defendant educational recruiter Stalker’s instructions. Brown enrolled in MCC in Stalker’s presence. Stalker instructed Brown to apply for a $2,100 financial aid grant. Brown’s pro se action under 42 USC §1983 alleged defendants made only a partial payment to MCC, leaving him with a $1,772 tuition deficiency. MCC withheld Brown’s grades due to the unpaid balance. Refusing further amendment to increase the amount of damages claimed to add factual allegations, and to add a punitive damages claim, District Court dismissed Brown’s amended complaint under 28 USC §1915 (e)(2)(B). Even assuming Rotenberg and Stalker acted under color of law, Brown did not state a due process claim. He failed to allege what protected liberty or property interest he was deprived of, and failed to link defendants’ failure to pay his MCC tuition with any alleged requirement under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) that his tuition be paid. Brown pointed to no WIA section that was violated, nor the basis of a private right of action under the WIA. Thus, he failed to state a claim for relief under the WIA.

District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Rotenberg, a career navigator with Rochester Works, allegedly told Brown that to enroll at Monroe Community College (MCC) he need only follow co-defendant educational recruiter Stalker’s instructions. Brown enrolled in MCC in Stalker’s presence. Stalker instructed Brown to apply for a $2,100 financial aid grant. Brown’s pro se action under 42 USC §1983 alleged defendants made only a partial payment to MCC, leaving him with a $1,772 tuition deficiency. MCC withheld Brown’s grades due to the unpaid balance. Refusing further amendment to increase the amount of damages claimed to add factual allegations, and to add a punitive damages claim, District Court dismissed Brown’s amended complaint under 28 USC §1915 (e)(2)(B). Even assuming Rotenberg and Stalker acted under color of law, Brown did not state a due process claim. He failed to allege what protected liberty or property interest he was deprived of, and failed to link defendants’ failure to pay his MCC tuition with any alleged requirement under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) that his tuition be paid. Brown pointed to no WIA section that was violated, nor the basis of a private right of action under the WIA. Thus, he failed to state a claim for relief under the WIA.