Dubose v. SUNY Maritime College Office of Financial Aid

Background

Malcolm Dubose, proceeding without a lawyer, filed three motions on March 13, 2025. First, he sought monetary sanctions against the defendants for allegedly submitting evidence containing personally identifying information about his relatives, claiming a violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Second, he sought sanctions against the New York State Attorney General’s Office under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for allegedly multiplying the proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously. Third, he asked the court to require the U.S. Department of Education to investigate his complaint under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

FERPA sanctions

The court assumed that Dubose was referring to an exhibit supporting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The exhibit included names, addresses, and phone numbers of personal references, including Dubose’s mother, from a federal student-loan application.

The court held that FERPA’s nondisclosure provisions address institutional policies and practices and do not create enforceable rights for an individual to obtain sanctions for a particular disclosure. The court also stated that Congress authorized the Secretary of Education to address FERPA violations. In addition, the court concluded that the records were relevant to the defendants’ effort to respond to Dubose’s allegation that they concealed the Fresh Start loan program from him. The court rejected sanctions under the federal rule governing filings made for improper purposes, finding that the exhibit was relevant and that Dubose had included some of the same unredacted information in his own filings.

Although the court denied the sanctions request, it ordered the defendants to file a redacted version of the exhibit. The redacted version must remove individuals’ addresses, phone numbers, and similar information because the public interest in that contact information was low and the privacy interest was high.

Sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927

The court denied Dubose’s request for sanctions against the New York State Attorney General’s Office. Section 1927 permits sanctions when an attorney’s conduct is so lacking in merit that it indicates an improper purpose, such as delay. The court explained that an explicit finding of bad faith is required before punishing conduct undertaken for a client.

The court found no basis for such a finding. The defendants had filed a motion to dismiss, which they were entitled to do, and had requested a short extension to file a reply after receiving Dubose’s lengthy opposition. The court had granted that extension, and it found nothing unusual, improper, or in bad faith in the defendants’ conduct.

Request to compel a Department of Education investigation

The court also denied Dubose’s motion to require the Department of Education to investigate the defendants. Under APA § 706(1), a court may require an agency to take an action that the law specifically requires but that the agency has unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. The court found that Dubose had identified no statute or regulation requiring the Department of Education to take a specific investigative action.

The court further explained that agency decisions about whether to investigate or enforce the law are generally presumed to be outside judicial review and are usually left to the agency’s discretion. The court found that Dubose had not overcome that presumption.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied Plaintiff’s motions. The court directed the defendants to file a redacted version of the specified exhibit and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the three motions.