Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 12, 2025

Bankston v. Academy of Art University

Judge
Sallie Kim
Docket
4:25-cv-04988
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureADA / DisabilityMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Bankston v. Academy of Art University, Judge Tiga dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and denied arbitration as moot.

Who this affects

Bankston’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, while Academy of Art University and Brandie Grogan obtained denial of their arbitration petition as moot. Bankston was given 28 days to file an amended complaint addressing the court’s identified deficiencies.

What happened

Jermain Lamar Bankston sued Academy of Art University and instructor Brandie Grogan, asserting disability-related, education-benefits, constitutional due-process, and contract claims. The court screened his amended complaint because he was proceeding without paying the filing fee.

The court found that Bankston still did not allege facts showing that his lab fee or low grade resulted from his disability. It also found that his claim under 38 U.S.C. § 3697A could not proceed because that law does not provide a private right to sue.

The court, in an order signed by Judge Tiga, dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and denied the defendants’ petition to compel arbitration and pause the case as moot. Bankston may file another amended complaint within 28 days addressing the identified problems; otherwise, the action will be dismissed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Bankston v. Academy of Art University · No. 4:25-cv-04988
Judge
Sallie Kim
Date
Nov. 12, 2025

Background

Jermain Lamar Bankston filed an amended complaint against Academy of Art University and instructor Brandie Grogan. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, 38 U.S.C. § 3697A, the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process guarantee, and a contract theory.

Because Bankston was proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). That statute requires dismissal if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court applied the same failure-to-state-a-claim standard used for a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Analysis

The court had previously identified three problems with Bankston’s original complaint: it did not allege facts showing that he was charged a lab fee because of a disability; the attached exhibits appeared to undermine his allegations by explaining his low grade and the lab fee; and 38 U.S.C. §§ 3679(c) and 3697A did not provide a private right of action.

The amended complaint did not resolve those problems. It still did not allege facts showing that Bankston received a low grade or was charged a lab fee because of his disability. Although he removed the exhibits, he alleged that defendants attributed his low grade to a “lack of color variety” and would not grade his work until he paid the lab fee. The amended complaint also continued to assert a claim under 38 U.S.C. § 3697A, which the court held could not form the basis of a claim because the statute did not provide a private right to sue.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) with leave to amend. It ordered that any further amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies be filed within 28 days of the order. The court also denied as moot the defendants’ petition to compel arbitration and stay the action because dismissal left no operative complaint or claims to send to arbitration. The order states that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the required time will result in dismissal of the action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.