Younger v. Bridgeport et al

Filing 11

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

Doc. 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ROBIN D. YOUNGER,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA BRIDGEFORTH, ALANA,
CALLAHAN and BRIDGEPORT BOARD
OF EDUCATION,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

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
granted.

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.
I.

Legal Standard
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

Dockets.Justia.com

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
misconduct alleged."

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
the

allegations,

and

interpret

them

liberally

strongest arguments [they] suggest[ ]."

to

"raise

the

Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d

636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).
II.

Factual Background
The plaintiff alleges that defendant Patricia Bridgeforth, a

school official, received a request for information about the
plaintiff's granddaughter.

(Compl. ¶7.)

The request stated that

the plaintiff consented to the release of the information, but this
was not correct.

(Compl. ¶8.)

The plaintiff contacted the school
2

principal, defendant Callahan, who confirmed that the school had
received a request for information but said that no information had
been provided in response.
contacted

the

defendant

(Compl. ¶13.)

Bridgeport

Board

The plaintiff also
of

Education.

The

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.
III. Discussion
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
Union

Free

School

Dist.,

702

F.

Supp.2d

122,

129

(E.D.N.Y.

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)).
Accordingly,

the

complaint
3

should

be

dismissed

without

prejudice.
Any

party

may

recommended ruling.

seek

the

district court's

review

of

this

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.

____________/s/_______________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

4