Williams v. City Univ. of New York, Brooklyn College
633 F. App'x 541
2d Cir.2015Background
- Robert Williams, pro se, filed three suits against CUNY/Brooklyn College alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VI.
- Two complaints (13-cv-2651 and 13-cv-3618) were dismissed as time-barred by the magistrate judge and district court.
- Williams had pursued complaints with the Department of Education OCR; he argued OCR involvement warranted equitable tolling of limitations.
- A third, timely complaint (13-cv-1055) was dismissed for failure to state plausible discrimination and retaliation claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court imposed a filing injunction against Williams based on a history of repetitive, conclusory suits, and denied his motion to recuse the district judge.
- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal, the filing injunction, and the denial of recusal, adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of two complaints | Williams argued OCR pursuit tolled the limitations period | CUNY: Title VI claims don’t require administrative exhaustion; OCR filings don’t equitably toll | Affirmed dismissal as time-barred; no equitable tolling for OCR filings |
| Sufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6) | Williams said complaints asserted discrimination and retaliation sufficiently | CUNY: allegations were conclusory and failed plausibly to plead elements | Affirmed dismissal for failure to state a plausible claim |
| Filing injunction | Williams opposed restrictions on filing | CUNY noted plaintiff’s repetitious, vexatious litigation history | Affirmed injunction as within district court’s discretion |
| Recusal of district judge | Williams claimed affidavit required recusal | CUNY: recusal unwarranted; disagreements with rulings aren’t extrajudicial bias | Affirmed denial of recusal; adverse rulings alone insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth)
- Johnson v. Nyack Hosp., 86 F.3d 8 (2d Cir. 1996) (equitable tolling not available for plaintiff’s discretionary administrative filing)
- AMS Grp. LLC v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, [citation="371 F. App'x 149"] (2d Cir. 2010) (administrative filings that aren’t prerequisites do not justify tolling)
- Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 2009) (review standard for sanctions and filing restrictions)
- Revson v. Cinque & Cinque, P.C., 221 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2000) (sanctions review principles cited)
- Hong Mai Sa v. Doe, 406 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2005) (upholding filing restrictions for vexatious litigants)
- United States v. Carlton, 534 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for recusal denial)
- United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (test for reasonable doubt about a judge’s impartiality)
- Chen v. Chen Qualified Settlement Fund, 552 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2009) (adverse rulings alone rarely establish judicial bias)