Sreedhar v. National Institute of Technology Karnataka

Background

Srikhanth Sreedhar, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a 132-page complaint against the National Institute of Technology Karnataka and Mangalore University. The opinion states that both defendants are located in India. Sreedhar alleged that the defendants violated the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) because his marks were displayed on the internet without his consent. He also alleged forgery, falsified transcripts and meeting minutes, stalking, privacy violations, and murder. He sought, among other relief, an order protecting his internet privacy.

The court had previously allowed Sreedhar to proceed without paying filing fees. The court therefore reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of a fee-waived complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that FERPA generally addresses federal funding for schools that have a policy or practice of releasing students’ education records without parental written consent. It is enforced through administrative procedures involving the Department of Education, including possible termination of federal funding.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of FERPA, the court held that FERPA does not create a private right of action. In other words, an individual cannot sue directly under FERPA for an alleged privacy violation. The court also stated that FERPA applies only to institutions receiving federal funding, and the complaint contained no allegations that either defendant received federal funding. For these reasons, the court concluded that Sreedhar could not maintain a FERPA action against the defendants.

Disposition

The court dismissed Sreedhar’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. The court declined to grant leave to amend because it determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions and enter judgment.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waived status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.