Jean-Louis v. Long Island Business Institute

Background

Moises-Lena Jean-Louis filed the action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking to recover money she said the defendants received through federal financial aid. The defendants were Long Island Business Institute (LIBI), Professional Business College (PBC), and Leon Lee. The opinion identifies LIBI and PBC as nonprofit schools and Lee as a president, presumably of one of the schools.

Jean-Louis alleged that the defendants offered college education without state permission. She alleged that PBC withdrew money from her federal student-aid account from 2011 through 2014 and that she later received an unaccredited degree with credits that could not be transferred. She made similar allegations about LIBI for the 2014–2015 school year. She sought reimbursement of all tuition charged from 2011 through 2015: $13,923 from PBC and $5,730 from LIBI.

Federal claims

Because Jean-Louis was allowed to proceed without paying court fees in advance, the court was required to screen her complaint. It had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also had to read her self-represented filing liberally, but the complaint still needed enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right secured by federal law or the Constitution and action taken by a person acting under color of state law. The court concluded that Jean-Louis alleged no facts showing that LIBI, PBC, or Lee acted as state actors or that their conduct could be attributed to the state. It therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Possible state-law claims

The court said Jean-Louis’s allegations could suggest state-law claims involving contract or fraud. It noted that, based on her allegations that she and the defendants were citizens of New York, the court lacked diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction over those claims. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Jean-Louis might be asserting.

Amendment and disposition

The court denied leave to amend because it concluded that the factual defects could not be cured by an amended complaint. The complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and all other pending matters were terminated. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Jean-Louis permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.