Dubose v. SUNY Maritime College Office of Financial Aid

Background

Malcolm DuBose filed this action on July 19, 2024. On May 23, 2025, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Clerk then entered judgment for the defendants and closed the case.

On June 23, 2025, DuBose asked for permission to file an amended complaint asserting a single claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. He said the amended pleading would provide more factual detail about the defendants’ alleged “ethnic bias” that prevented him from obtaining a Title IV loan. The defendants opposed the request. DuBose was proceeding without a lawyer.

Legal standard

A party seeking to amend a complaint after judgment generally must first obtain relief from that judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Rule 59(e) permits a motion to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days after entry of judgment. Because DuBose’s request came later, the court treated it as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the final judgment.

Rule 60(b) provides several grounds for relief from a judgment. The court focused on Rule 60(b)(6), which allows relief for another reason that justifies it, when exceptional circumstances exist and the request is made within a reasonable time. In deciding whether to grant post-judgment relief to file a first amended complaint, courts must consider both the policy favoring final judgments and Rule 15’s generally liberal approach to allowing amendments. Relevant reasons to deny amendment can include undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to correct earlier problems, undue prejudice, or futility. An amendment is futile if it could not survive a motion to dismiss because it does not state a plausible claim for relief.

Court’s analysis

The court noted that it had previously reviewed DuBose’s complaint, more than a year of email correspondence between DuBose and the defendants, and the filings’ exhibits. In the earlier dismissal, the court concluded that DuBose had not alleged facts suggesting that the defendants’ conduct was based on race. The court also observed that the exhibits indicated that the defendants had spent considerable time and effort guiding DuBose through the federal-aid application process, which undermined his allegation that they were trying to discourage him from obtaining aid.

The court therefore expressed skepticism that DuBose could plead additional facts supporting a plausible inference of discrimination or interference with forming a contract. But the court said it could not conduct a complete futility analysis because DuBose had not filed the proposed amended complaint and had not otherwise explained the additional facts he intended to allege. The court also referred to the special consideration given to people who represent themselves in court.

Disposition

Judge Rochon ordered DuBose to file no later than September 12, 2025, a letter of no more than two pages briefly describing his proposed Section 1981 claim and any new factual allegations supporting it. The opinion does not state that the judgment was vacated, that the case was reopened, or that permission to amend was granted or denied. It instead required additional information before the court could evaluate the request.