Sullivan v. Banks

Background

Mark Sullivan, proceeding without a lawyer, sued David C. Banks, Lester W. Young, Jr., and Binong Xu under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Sullivan alleged that he was denied access to his daughter’s education records, including the name of her school and her graduation date. He asserted claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and state law for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Sullivan alleged that a note in his daughter’s education file caused employees of the New York City Department of Education to deny his requests. He said that he learned through a Freedom of Information Law request that Xu, the child’s custodial parent, had written the note. Sullivan sought damages and other relief. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.

Court’s reasoning

The court applied the screening requirement for complaints filed without paying fees. Under that requirement, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that self-represented complaints are read liberally but must still provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

The court dismissed the FERPA claims because FERPA does not create a private right to sue for an alleged violation of its education-records provisions.

For the § 1983 claims, the court explained that Sullivan had to allege both a violation of a constitutional or federal right and action by a person acting under state law. The court treated the claims against Banks as claims against the Department of Education and treated the complaint as also referring to the Department of Education employees Amy Basile and Ms. LeBron.

The court held that Sullivan did not state a Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process claim. Although parents have a protected interest in the care, custody, and management of their children, Sullivan did not allege facts showing that the employees acted arbitrarily or irrationally or that their conduct was so extreme that it shocked the conscience. The court stated that Basile allegedly followed instructions in the file and that LeBron referred Sullivan’s request to the Department of Education’s legal department. The court also explained that the parent-child association claim Sullivan identified under the First Amendment is analyzed in this circuit under substantive due process.

The court dismissed the municipal-liability claims against the City of New York. Sullivan did not allege an underlying constitutional violation or facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged violation. The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Young in his official capacity under the Eleventh Amendment, which generally protects states and state entities or agents from federal-court lawsuits unless immunity has been waived or removed by Congress. The court concluded that New York had not waived that immunity and that § 1983 did not remove it.

Because it dismissed the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over any intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and because it sought monetary relief from an immune defendant. It granted Sullivan 30 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts supporting his § 1983 claims. The court stated that judgment would be entered if he did not amend within that period. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The clerk was directed to keep the case open until further direction.