Bota v. Hunter College City University of New York

Background

Victor Cesar Bota, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued Hunter College City University of New York, Jason Wirtz, Jennifer J. Raab, and Collen Barry. Bota alleged that the defendants caused him academic, financial, mental, and emotional injuries between August 2020 and March 2021. He invoked the First Amendment, the Lanham Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and sought money damages. He also alleged that the defendants misappropriated federal funds.

The court had previously allowed Bota to proceed without prepaying filing fees. In reviewing a complaint filed under that status, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Rule 8 and the dismissal

The court held that the complaint did not satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The complaint did not provide facts explaining what occurred, what each defendant did, or how any defendant violated Bota’s rights. The court therefore dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Claims discussed by the court

For the First Amendment claim, the court said Bota did not allege facts showing that he engaged in protected speech, that a defendant retaliated against him because of that speech, or that there was a causal connection between his complaint and an adverse action.

For the Lanham Act claim, the court explained that the statute concerns trademark infringement. Bota did not allege that he owned a trademark or that a defendant infringed one.

For the Whistleblower Protection Act claim, the court stated that the statute applies only to federal employees. Because Bota was not a federal employee, the court concluded that he could not maintain a claim under that statute.

For the disability claim, the court discussed Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits disability discrimination by public entities. The court said Bota identified himself as having a severe mental disability but did not allege facts showing that the defendants discriminated or retaliated against him because of that disability. The court also noted that his allegations might implicate the Rehabilitation Act, but found that the complaint did not state sufficient facts for disability-based relief.

Leave to amend and disposition

Because the court could not say that amendment would be futile, particularly regarding possible disability-based claims, it granted Bota 30 days’ leave to replead. The court directed that an amended complaint identify the relevant people and their titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do and when and where it occurred, describe the injuries, and identify the requested relief. The amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. The court terminated all other pending matters and stated that it would enter judgment dismissing the claims if Bota did not timely amend.

Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.