Mamatkulov v. City University of New York

Background

Lazizjon Mamatkulov, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City University of New York (CUNY) and sought reinstatement at Hunter College. He alleged that CUNY expelled him after finding that his answer on an assignment was similar to a classmate’s answer. He also alleged that six other students had plagiarized on examinations and assignments during the COVID-19 period but were not expelled. Mamatkulov asserted that the expulsion was wrongful because he is Muslim and disabled and that he was not given a chance to be heard.

The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee. It reviewed the complaint under the screening requirements for such cases, which require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fail to state a legally sufficient claim. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Disability-discrimination claims

The court construed Mamatkulov’s disability allegation as potentially asserting claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. It held that the allegation that he is a “disabled person” was a legal conclusion, not factual information identifying an impairment that limits major life activities. The court also found no facts supporting an inference that CUNY expelled him because of a disability rather than because of its plagiarism determination. As pleaded, the complaint therefore failed to state a claim under either statute.

The court explained that an amended complaint would need facts showing that Mamatkulov has a qualifying disability and facts supporting an inference that the expulsion occurred because of that disability.

Equal-protection claims

The court construed Mamatkulov’s allegations about being Muslim and disabled as possible claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing claims against state actors who violate federal rights. The court found that he had not pleaded facts showing discriminatory treatment based on religion or disability. It also held that CUNY’s central administration and senior colleges are arms of New York State, and that the Eleventh Amendment generally barred his Section 1983 claims against CUNY in federal court.

Because Mamatkulov sought reinstatement, which is prospective injunctive relief, the court granted him leave to replead these claims against a CUNY official in an official capacity. The court stated that a claim for damages could instead be brought against an individual CUNY employee in an individual capacity if that person was personally involved in discrimination. An amended complaint would also need facts directly showing discrimination or supporting an inference of purposeful discrimination.

Procedural-due-process claim

The court recognized that a college student has a protected interest in continuing in a program of study. A student facing discipline is generally entitled to notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence if the charges are denied, and an opportunity to present the student’s side before the deprivation becomes final.

The court stated that Mamatkulov appeared to have notice of the cheating and plagiarism charges, but that his allegation that he was not given a chance to be heard was conclusory. If he amended the complaint, he would need to allege facts showing that he lacked an opportunity to present his side before losing his interest in continuing at Hunter College. He would also need to identify a CUNY policy or custom that caused the alleged constitutional deprivation if he pursued a claim against CUNY or a state official under Section 1983.

Disposition

The court granted Mamatkulov leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must identify the individuals allegedly involved, describe the relevant events and each defendant’s conduct, state his injuries, and identify the relief sought. It would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that Section 1983 claims for reinstatement could proceed only against an appropriate CUNY official in an official capacity, not against CUNY itself.

The order stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Mamatkulov failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal.