Badger v. CUNY Graduate Center

Background

Cornelius A. Badger, Jr. brought the case without a lawyer against the CUNY Graduate Center. He alleged that he registered for two classes in summer 2021 but withdrew from an online course about two weeks after classes began because the schedule made it difficult to attend. He alleged that the Graduate Center’s Financial Aid Office canceled some previously approved and disbursed student loans and later sent adjusted loan information to credit reporting agencies. He also alleged that he was barred from using the library and other Graduate Center services.

Badger invoked Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title I of the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979; the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008; the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; unspecified provisions associated with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and state-law libel claims. He sought damages and an order requiring access to Graduate Center resources available to students in good standing.

Court’s analysis

Because Badger was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to screen his 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 explained that although it must read a self-represented litigant’s complaint generously, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make the asserted claims plausible.

Title VI

Title VI prohibits intentional discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance. The court held that Badger did not state a Title VI claim. He did not allege facts about his own race, color, or national origin, or facts suggesting that any of those characteristics influenced the Graduate Center’s handling of his loans. The court also explained that Title VI does not cover discrimination based on age or disability, and that Badger could not seek relief on behalf of other people. The court noted that federal regulations generally require colleges to recalculate a withdrawing student’s eligible loan assistance, although the record did not establish which regulations applied to Badger’s loans.

Higher-education statutes and the Department of Education Organization Act

The court explained that courts have repeatedly held that the Higher Education Act, including its 2008 amendments, does not provide student borrowers with a private right to sue. In any event, Badger’s allegations that CUNY breached several provisions were too conclusory because he did not explain what CUNY did or failed to do.

Badger’s basis for invoking Title I of the Department of Education Organization Act was unclear, and the allegations were also insufficient to state a claim under that statute.

Credit reporting and related claims

Badger alleged that the Graduate Center provided damaging and misleading information about his student loans to credit bureaus. He did not identify specific provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act or the referenced Consumer Financial Protection Bureau provisions that CUNY violated, and the court was unaware of a private right to sue under those provisions for furnishing information to credit reporting agencies.

The court considered whether the allegations could be read as asserting a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal law governing entities that provide information to credit reporting agencies. The court explained that an individual may sue a furnisher under the provision requiring investigation of a reported inaccuracy only after the furnisher receives notice of the dispute from a credit reporting agency. Badger alleged that CUNY furnished information but did not allege that a credit reporting agency notified CUNY of a dispute or that CUNY then failed to investigate. He therefore did not state a claim under that provision.

The court further stated that the Graduate Center is an arm of New York State and that the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not remove the State’s constitutional immunity from suits for damages in federal court. If Badger amended to assert the potential credit-reporting claim, the court said he could pursue it only against an individual state official in that official’s official capacity and only for forward-looking injunctive relief. The court did not decide Badger’s state-law libel claims or whether federal law preempted them at this stage.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Badger leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of March 6, 2023. The amended complaint had to replace the original complaint, not supplement it, and had to identify the relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. The order stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Badger failed to amend within the permitted period without showing good cause, his federal claims would be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

Judge Edgardo Ramos also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.