Xue v. Columbia University in the City of New York

Background

QSHEN XUE, appearing without a lawyer, sued Columbia University in the City of New York. The court had previously allowed Xue to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Xue used the court’s employment-discrimination complaint form but did not select a federal employment-discrimination statute. Under “Other Claims,” Xue wrote: “The negligence of paperwork of my employer caused psychological trauma.” Xue marked termination of employment and failure to accommodate a disability as alleged adverse employment actions. The handwritten factual statement supporting the claims was virtually illegible.

Screening standard

Because Xue was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that it must read complaints filed by people without lawyers generously, but those complaints still must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that it could not properly evaluate the nature and extent of Xue’s claims because the complaint was illegible. The complaint also did not give Columbia University adequate notice of the allegations. The court determined that these defects might be corrected through an amended complaint.

The court stated that, if Xue intended to pursue an employment-discrimination claim, the amended complaint needed to identify one of the relevant federal antidiscrimination statutes and allege facts suggesting that Columbia University took an adverse employment action because of a protected characteristic. The court identified examples including race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and disability. It did not decide whether Xue had proved discrimination or whether any particular claim had merit.

Disposition

Judge Swain granted Xue leave to file a legible amended complaint within 60 days of the order. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so any facts or claims Xue wanted the court to consider had to be repeated. The court directed Xue to include relevant people’s names and titles, the events and approximate dates and locations, the injuries allegedly suffered, and the requested relief.

The court stated that if Xue failed to file a legible amended complaint within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed without prejudice. No summons would issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Xue permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.