Hamm v. City University of New York

Background

Jeffery Hamm filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that, after his common-law wife died from an overdose, he told several professors that he was a veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder. He said he also contacted the Veterans Office Counselor, the Counseling Office, and the Office of Students with Disabilities, but was not told that he could withdraw from all classes without penalty. He alleged that the defendants instead allowed him to fail.

Hamm sought restoration of his grade-point average, credits and transfer credits, financial-aid eligibility, removal from default, and permission to complete Adult Degree Program requirements toward a degree of his choice. He had previously been granted permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Claims and screening standard

The court reviewed the complaint under the screening rules for a case filed without prepaying fees. Those rules require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also said it had to read a complaint filed without a lawyer liberally, while still requiring enough facts to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible.

Because Hamm alleged that he had post-traumatic stress disorder, the court construed the complaint as asserting claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Claims against Lehman College and the Office of Students with Disabilities

The court dismissed the claims against Herbert H. Lehman College and the Office of Students with Disabilities. It explained that Lehman College is a senior college within CUNY and has no separate legal existence. It also said that the Office of Students with Disabilities did not appear to be a legally recognizable entity separate from CUNY.

Rehabilitation Act claim

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act generally prohibits a federally funded program or activity from excluding or discriminating against an otherwise qualified person solely because of a disability. The court said Hamm had not alleged that he was excluded from a benefit solely because of his disability. It therefore granted him leave to amend his complaint to state a Rehabilitation Act claim.

The court also ruled that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar a Section 504 claim against CUNY because, as stated in the opinion, New York had waived immunity for those claims.

Americans with Disabilities Act claims

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits a public entity from denying a qualified person with a disability the benefits of its services, programs, or activities because of the disability. The court assumed that Hamm’s allegations might suggest that he was a qualified person with a disability and was denied certain benefits. But the complaint did not allege that the denial occurred because of his post-traumatic stress disorder. The court also said it was unclear whether the Veterans Office Counselor or the Office of Students with Disabilities knew about that condition. It granted Hamm leave to amend the Title II claim with facts suggesting discrimination because of his post-traumatic stress disorder.

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits disability discrimination by places of public accommodation, but the court said Title III does not apply to public entities such as Lehman College. The court therefore dismissed Hamm’s Title III claims.

The opinion discusses Hamm’s action as arising under Section 1983 and construes it as also raising Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act claims. It does not separately state a disposition for a distinct Section 1983 claim beyond the rulings described above.

Disposition and amendment instructions

The court granted Hamm leave to file an amended complaint asserting facts supporting his Rehabilitation Act and Title II claims. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and include the facts and claims Hamm wished to pursue. The court directed him, to the greatest extent possible, to identify relevant people and their titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations, explain how his rights were violated, describe his injuries, and state the relief requested.

Hamm had 60 days from the date of the order to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 20-CV-2876 (LLS). No summons would be issued at that time. If he failed to comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.