Rivers v. National University

Background

Keith Rivers, who was representing himself and was a graduate student at National University, applied to proceed without paying court filing fees. He alleged that university financial-aid staff delayed his financial aid, awarded him $2,000 per month, and denied his request for a budget increase after he submitted his lease. Rivers alleged that the university’s actions violated an agreement concerning financial aid, violated a requirement of the U.S. Department of Education, and occurred because he is male and African American.

Court’s analysis

The court granted Rivers’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. Because he received that status, the court was required to screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and determine whether it was frivolous, failed to state a legally valid claim, or sought money from an immune defendant.

The court concluded that the current complaint did not state a claim on which relief could be granted. For a possible breach-of-contract claim, Rivers did not allege that National University agreed to provide enough financial aid to pay his rent and other expenses. The court also noted that a contract claim generally arises under state law and that it was unclear whether the court would have jurisdiction over such a claim.

For the possible federal claim concerning a financial-aid increase, Rivers did not identify a federal law requiring universities to grant increases based on lease agreements. The language he attributed to the Department of Education appeared to come from a University of California Santa Cruz financial-aid website, and that language stated only that leases could support an increase request, not that a university was required to grant one.

The court also considered whether Rivers intended to assert discrimination claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which concerns race discrimination in federally funded programs, or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which concerns sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. The court found that Rivers’s assertion that the university acted because of his race and sex was unsupported by factual allegations. He also did not allege that National University received federal funding, which the court said would be necessary for either of those claims.

Order

The court did not dismiss the complaint in this order. Instead, it ordered Rivers to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Rivers could file either an amended complaint or a response explaining why his existing complaint was sufficient by February 19, 2020. The court stated that failure to respond would lead to reassignment to a district judge with a recommendation that the case be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court also continued the case management conference from January 24, 2020, to May 15, 2020.