Dubose v. SUNY Maritime College Office of Financial Aid

Background

Malcolm DuBose, proceeding without a lawyer, sued SUNY Maritime College’s Office of Financial Aid and several individuals. He alleged that officials incorrectly told him he was ineligible for federal student aid because two earlier federal loans were in default. He claimed they failed to tell him about the Department of Education’s Fresh Start program, which he alleged could have restored his eligibility. DuBose alleged that he therefore could not obtain aid, incurred a tuition debt of nearly $19,000, took a leave of absence, and was unable to complete his graduate program.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that DuBose had not stated a legally sufficient claim. DuBose separately sought injunctive and declaratory relief, including reinstatement as a student in good standing and a full scholarship.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court first held that DuBose had Article III standing. It found that his alleged denial of federal aid, tuition debt, and loss of a diploma could possibly be traced to the defendants’ alleged failure to provide accurate information about Fresh Start. At this stage, the court assumed for purposes of standing that DuBose was eligible for Fresh Start in April 2022 and that the defendants were responsible for providing timely and accurate information about it.

The court nevertheless dismissed DuBose’s claims under the Higher Education Act and several criminal statutes under Rule 12(b)(1). It held that the Higher Education Act does not provide student borrowers with a private right to enforce its provisions. Because DuBose’s claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 were based on alleged Higher Education Act violations, those claims also failed. The criminal-statute claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 245, 246, and 1343 likewise could not proceed because those statutes did not provide a private right of action. The court therefore dismissed the Higher Education Act and criminal claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Failure to State a Claim

The court construed DuBose’s remaining allegations as claims under the Equal Educational Opportunity Act and a retaliation claim under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

For the Equal Educational Opportunity Act claim, DuBose alleged that the defendants withheld information about Fresh Start to prevent him from receiving federal aid and to protect the College’s student-loan default rate. He identified himself as Black and male and argued that Black men have high student-loan default rates. The court held that he did not allege facts showing that the defendants’ conduct was based on his race or sex. It also noted that documents in the record showed College employees assisting him with the aid process and that the College awarded him a scholarship. The court dismissed the Equal Educational Opportunity Act claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

For the Title VI retaliation claim, DuBose alleged that two financial-aid officials retaliated against him after he complained about the denial of aid and inaccurate communications. The court held that his complaint did not allege that he had complained about discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Without that type of protected activity, he did not state a plausible Title VI retaliation claim. The court dismissed that claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

The court also declined to consider new Title IX, Section 1983, and New York General Business Law claims that DuBose attempted to raise in his opposition papers, explaining that those claims were not properly presented in the complaint and lacked supporting factual allegations.

Request for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

DuBose argued that the defendants’ request for proof that he had resolved his defaulted loans violated the Higher Education Act and sought a declaration that the request was legally preempted. He also sought an injunction requiring reinstatement as a student in good standing and a full scholarship. Because the court had held that the Higher Education Act provided no private right of action, it denied DuBose’s motion for injunctive and declaratory relief.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed the Higher Education Act and criminal claims under Rule 12(b)(1), dismissed the Title VI and Equal Educational Opportunity Act claims under Rule 12(b)(6), denied DuBose’s motion for injunctive and declaratory relief, terminated the pending motions, and closed the case.