James v. U.S. Department of Educations

Background

Jeremy Allan James filed this action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. He asserted fraud and defamation claims against the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), its attorneys Ebone Woods and Gary Kiang, the State University of New York (SUNY), and Well Life Network Incorporated (WLNI).

James alleged that, while he was completing a SUNY social work internship with WLNI, his supervisor sexually harassed him and he faced retaliation after raising concerns about patient treatment. He alleged that Woods and Kiang issued a fraudulent and biased OCR report finding no discrimination or retaliation, falsely stated that he had not raised concerns about patient treatment, and harmed his reputation by failing to mention his academic record. He also alleged that OCR approved the report and failed to provide a transparent appeal process. James characterized the case as a whistleblower lawsuit and invoked 18 U.S.C. § 1031, a federal criminal statute.

Screening standard

Because James proceeded without paying the filing fee in advance, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of an action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that relief. The court also noted that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a plausible claim for relief.

Court’s analysis

The court relied on rulings in James’s earlier related proceedings. It dismissed the claims against OCR, Woods, and Kiang on sovereign-immunity grounds and because James had not alleged facts supporting a viable claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act, or Title VII.

The court also held, consistent with the ruling in an earlier related proceeding, that James could not bring a whistleblower lawsuit on behalf of the government without a lawyer and could not assert claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1031. The court explained that § 1031 is a criminal statute and that decisions to prosecute belong to prosecutors.

The court dismissed James’s claims against SUNY without prejudice to the claims pending in No. 22-CV-4856. The opinion’s discussion does not separately identify the disposition of each claim against WLNI, but its conclusion states that the complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii).

Disposition

The court denied further leave to amend because James had already amended his complaint and the defects could not be cured through another amendment. It terminated all other pending matters and directed the clerk to enter judgment.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. It also warned that continued duplicate litigation could lead to an order requiring James to explain why he should not be barred from filing new actions without paying filing fees, unless he first obtained permission.