Maxwell v. New York University
407 F. App'x 524
2d Cir.2010Background
- Maxwell, pro se, sues NYU and Connelly alleging MSSA and ADA violations due to cancellation of his 2005-06 financial aid.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants on MSSA and ADA claims.
- MSSA requires exhaustion through DOE procedures; district court held exhaustion via 34 C.F.R. § 668.37 is required before federal suit.
- ADA claim challenged discharge of aid as not based on disability; district court found no genuine issue of material fact that actions were based on Selective Service status.
- Maxwell sought pro bono counsel and discovery sanctions; district court denied both, and Maxwell appeals those denials.
- Second Circuit reviews de novo MSSA exhaustion and afforded discretion for discovery and counsel decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is exhaustion of MSSA administrative remedies required before suit? | Maxwell argues no exhaustion needed due to federal claim. | NYU/Connelly contend exhaustion is prerequisite under 34 C.F.R. § 668.37. | Exhaustion required; district court proper to grant summary judgment on MSSA claim. |
| Did Maxwell raise a triable ADA discrimination claim? | Discrimination occurred on basis of disability entitling relief. | Disbursement tied to ineligibility under federal law, not disability; no failure to accommodate. | No genuine issue; ADA claim fails. |
| Was the denial of pro bono counsel an abuse of discretion? | Need for counsel due to complexity and pro se status. | Maxwell demonstrated ability to proceed; discretion to deny appropriate. | No abuse; denial upheld. |
| Was the district court's discovery ruling an abuse of discretion? | NYU failed to respond; sanctions warranted. | NYU complied with discovery obligations; no abuse. | No abuse; discovery ruling affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Havey v. Homebound Mortg., Inc., 547 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary judgment standard; de novo review of facts)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (exhaustion doctrine overview)
- Bastek v. Fed. Crop Ins. Co., 145 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 1998) (exhaustion waiver criteria)
- Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. President R.C.-St. Regis Mgmt. Co., 451 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2006) (permissible exhaustion waiver grounds)
- McGee v. United States, 402 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1971) (exhaustion does not bar relief when appropriate)
- Terminate Control Corp. v. Horowitz, 28 F.3d 1335 (2d Cir. 1994) (abuse of discretion standard for counsel decisions)