Bankston v. Academy of Art University
- Sallie Kim
- 4:25-cv-04988
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Bankston v. Academy of Art University, Judge Kim dismissed Bankston’s claims with prejudice after screening found they were not adequately supported.
Jermain Lamar Bankston’s claims against Academy of Art University, Brandie Grogan, and the other defendants were dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed.
What happened
Jermain Lamar Bankston sued Academy of Art University and others, alleging disability discrimination, Rehabilitation Act violations, regulatory violations, and breach of contract. He said he was denied access to a silkscreen lab, experienced grading delays and poor grades, and was denied admission to a master’s program.
The court screened his second amended complaint because he was proceeding under a fee-waiver status. It found that he did not clearly allege that the challenged actions were discriminatory or otherwise unlawful. The court also said documents attached to his complaint showed that lab access depended on rules for online students, that his work was graded promptly, and that his poor grades resulted from repeatedly failing to follow instructions.
Judge Sallie Kim dismissed the claims with prejudice after Bankston had two opportunities to correct the problems. The court allowed no further amendments, directed the clerk to enter judgment, and ordered the case closed.
The detailed version
- Bankston v. Academy of Art University · No. 4:25-cv-04988
- Sallie Kim
- Dec. 15, 2025
Background
Jermain Lamar Bankston filed a second amended complaint against Academy of Art University and its instructor Brandie Grogan. The complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(a), and for breach of contract. Bankston alleged that the defendants denied him access to a silkscreen lab, delayed grading his work, gave him persistently poor grades, and denied him admission to the school’s MFA program because of those grades.
Screening standard
Because Bankston was proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning under the court’s screening process for a case filed without the usual filing-fee payment, the court reviewed 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 claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court explained that the failure-to-state-a-claim standard is the same standard used for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). A complaint must give defendants fair notice of the claims and their grounds; labels, conclusions, and unsupported assertions are not enough.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Bankston had not explained how his disability interacted with silkscreen work in a way that made access to the lab necessary for him to participate equally with nondisabled students. The court also found that he did not clearly allege that the lab-fee issue, grading delays, poor grades, or MFA-program denial were discriminatory or otherwise violated the law.
The court relied in part on documents attached to the complaint. Those documents indicated that online students could not use the silkscreen lab without prior approval, supervision, and payment of a fee; that Bankston’s work was graded promptly; and that his poor grades resulted from repeatedly failing to follow instructions. The court noted that Bankston had not corrected deficiencies identified in two earlier screening orders, including the lack of facts showing that a lab fee or low grade was imposed because of his disability.
Disposition
Judge Sallie Kim dismissed Bankston’s claims with prejudice under Section 1915(e)(2). The court stated that no further amendments would be allowed, directed the clerk to enter judgment, and ordered the file closed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.