Ferrantino v. Stanford University
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:21-cv-07757
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ferrantino v. Stanford University, Judge Beeler ordered more facts about an alleged ADA violation and allowed supplementation rather than dismissing the complaint immediately.
Anthony Ferrantino and Stanford University; the order required Ferrantino to provide additional facts before the court decided whether his complaint could proceed.
What happened
In Ferrantino v. Stanford University, Anthony Ferrantino, representing himself, claimed that Stanford University violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by wrongfully arresting him while he was receiving medical care and barring him from his doctor’s office and the hospital. The court had granted his request to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court screened the complaint and said it needed more facts to evaluate the claim. It ordered Ferrantino to explain what happened on the relevant day, why he believed the arrest was wrong, why he believed it was disability discrimination, and what his disability was. It allowed him to provide those facts by October 29, 2021, including in a letter.
The court did not dismiss the complaint at that time, but warned that it might dismiss the case for failure to state a claim if Ferrantino did not provide the requested information. Judge Beeler signed the order.
The detailed version
- Ferrantino v. Stanford University · No. 3:21-cv-07757
- Laurel Beeler
- Oct. 12, 2021
Background
Anthony Ferrantino filed a complaint without a lawyer against Stanford University. He alleged that Stanford violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act by wrongfully arresting him while he was a patient receiving medical care. He also alleged that he was denied access to his doctor’s office and the hospital, was told not to return, and that the arrest was an error. He described himself as a Stanford patient for forty years and a member of the Stanford alumni association.
Ferrantino also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that request.
Screening standard
Because Ferrantino was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint before service. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim for relief. The court also explained that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but they still must provide enough facts to give the defendant fair notice of the claim and its basis.
Order
The court said that it needed more facts to evaluate Ferrantino’s ADA claim. It ordered him to supplement his complaint by describing exactly what happened on the day in question, why he believed what happened was wrong, why he believed it was discrimination violating the ADA, and what his disability was. The court permitted him to provide the additional information by October 29, 2021, including in the form of a letter.
The court did not dismiss the complaint in this order. It warned that the complaint might be dismissed for failure to state a claim if Ferrantino did not provide the requested information. Judge Laurel Beeler signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.