Morales v. New York, 22 F. Supp. 3d 256

Background

Pro se plaintiff Edward Morales, a disabled former SUNY student, sued SUNY, many SUNY officials, the Law School Admission Council, the Town of Harrison, and unnamed John Does asserting ADA (Titles II, III, V), Age Discrimination Act, Title VII, Title IX, First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, FERPA and other statutes.
Core factual allegations: SUNY required a psychological evaluation to clear an old health “flag,” disciplined Morales for plagiarism and housing-related incidents, accessed his SUNY email during an investigation, denied requested housing accommodations, and prosecuted him criminally after an allegedly threatening email.
Morales sought injunctive relief and damages; the State Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 8 and 12(b)(6).
The Court treated the prolix amended complaint liberally but found many allegations conclusory, incoherent, or unsupported by plausible facts and considered Eleventh Amendment and statutory/precedential bars.
Ruling: the Court granted State Defendants’ motion to dismiss in full (Title V ADA claims dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; other claims dismissed on substantive or procedural grounds). Two non-state defendants remained but faced potential dismissal for lack of service.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of ADA Title III / Title II accommodations	Morales asserted ADA claims for denial of accommodations and discriminatory discipline	Title III does not apply to public entities; Title II governs public universities and requires plausible facts showing denial of reasonable accommodation or discriminatory animus	Title III inapplicable; Title II claims dismissed for failure to plausibly allege denial of reasonable accommodation or discriminatory animus
ADA Title V retaliation and Eleventh Amendment	Morales alleged retaliation under Title V for complaining about disability discrimination	State argued Eleventh Amendment bars Title V retaliation claims against states and state actors	Court held Title V retaliation claims barred by Eleventh Amendment; dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction
Age Discrimination Act exhaustion / Title VII applicability	Morales alleged age and sex discrimination in housing and ID checks; alleged Title VII sex discrimination	Defendants argued plaintiff is a student (not an employee) for Title VII; Age Act requires exhaustion of administrative remedies	Title VII claims dismissed (not available to students); Age Act claim dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead exhaustion
Constitutional claims (First Amendment, Due Process, Equal Protection) via § 1983	Morales contended his emails were protected speech; that disciplinary process denied due process; that he suffered disparate treatment	Defendants argued Morales failed to plead § 1983 properly, Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state actors in official capacities, lack of personal involvement, availability of state remedies, and qualified immunity for individual defendants	Court construed claims as § 1983 but dismissed: official-capacity claims barred by Eleventh Amendment; individual-capacity claims dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement or plausible constitutional violations; qualified immunity protected defendants on First Amendment claim
FERPA / Privacy Act claims	Morales claimed FERPA and Privacy Act violations regarding records and email access	Defendants argued FERPA does not create private right of action; Privacy Act applies only to federal agencies	Court dismissed FERPA claim (no private cause of action) and rejected Privacy Act claim (statute inapplicable to state actors)
Title IX sex discrimination	Morales alleged sex discrimination generally	Defendants argued no facts alleging sex-based discriminatory treatment	Court dismissed Title IX claim for failure to plead targeted sex-based discrimination

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead factual matter rendering liability plausible)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard and Rule 8 pleading requirements)
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states and state agencies are not "persons" under § 1983)
Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (FERPA does not create individually enforceable right under § 1983)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent officials)
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (student speech protected unless it materially disrupts school)
Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985) (courts defer to academic judgment absent a substantial departure from accepted norms)
Board of Curators of Univ. of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978) (procedural due process requirements for student disciplinary action)
Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state by its own citizens)