Younger v. Bridgeport et al
ORDER and RECOMMENDED RULING: The plaintiff's motion 2 for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is granted based on the financial information plaintifff submitted. However, the court recommends that the complaint 1 be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. See attached ruling, 4 Pages. Objection due by 8/27/2013. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 8/13/13.(Constantine, A.)
Younger v. Bridgeport et al
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ROBIN D. YOUNGER,
PATRICIA BRIDGEFORTH, ALANA,
CALLAHAN and BRIDGEPORT BOARD
CASE NO. 3:13CV1008(AWT)
RECOMMENDED RULING OF DISMISSAL
The plaintiff, Robin D. Younger, brings this action against
defendants Patricia Bridgeport, Alana Callahan and the Bridgeport
Board of Education, alleging violation of the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g.
Pending before the
court is the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. #2.)
Based on the
financial information submitted by the plaintiff, the motion is
However, the undersigned recommends that this action be
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
for failure to state a claim.
The same statute that authorizes the court to grant in forma
pauperis status to a plaintiff also contains a provision that
protects against abuses of this privilege. Subsection (e) provides
that the court "shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief."
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
A complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face."
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
A claim has "facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
"Although courts still have an obligation to liberally construe a
pro se complaint, see Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir.
2009), the complaint must include sufficient factual allegations to
meet the standard of facial plausibility." Bilodeau v. Pillai, No.
3:10CV1910(JCH), 2011 WL 3665428, at *1 (D. Conn. Aug. 22, 2011).
In reviewing a pro se complaint, the court must assume the truth of
strongest arguments [they] suggest[ ]."
Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d
636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).
The plaintiff alleges that defendant Patricia Bridgeforth, a
school official, received a request for information about the
The request stated that
the plaintiff consented to the release of the information, but this
was not correct.
The plaintiff contacted the school
principal, defendant Callahan, who confirmed that the school had
received a request for information but said that no information had
been provided in response.
The plaintiff also
plaintiff later learned that defendant Bridgeforth had provided
information regarding the plaintiff's granddaughter in response to
the faxed request. (Compl. ¶19.)
The plaintiff alleges that by
disclosing the information without proper consent, the defendants
violated the nondisclosure provisions of the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 ("FERPA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g.
The plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because it fails
to state a legally cognizable claim.
The United States Supreme
Court has unequivocally held that "FERPA's nondisclosure provisions
fail to confer [individually] enforceable rights" and provide no
basis for a private right of action.
U.S. 273, 287 (2002).
Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536
See also Curto v. Roth, 87 Fed. App'x 785
(2d Cir. 2004)(affirming dismissal of plaintiff's claims under
FERPA in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzaga Univ. v.
Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002)); Simpson ex rel. Simpson v. Uniondale
2010)(dismissing FERPA claim because "FERPA does not create a
private cause of action by itself", citing Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe,
536 U.S. 273, 276 (2002)).
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (written objections to
proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen
days after service of same); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(d) & 72; Rule
72.2 of the Local Rule for United States Magistrate Judges, United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut; Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300
(2d Cir. 1992) (failure to file timely objections to Magistrate
Judge's recommended ruling waives further review of the ruling).
Dated this 13th day of August, 2013 at Hartford, Connecticut.
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?