Smith v. Roger Williams Law School, No. 1:2021cv00190 - Document 103 (D.R.I. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER granting 96 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. So Ordered by District Judge Paul J. Barbadoro on 2/27/2023. (Simoncelli, Michael)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. Roger Williams Law School Doc. 103 Case 1:21-cv-00190-PJB-AKJ Document 103 Filed 02/27/23 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1056 U N I T E D S T AT E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T O F R H O D E I S L AN D J im m y Sm it h Ca se No. 21-cv-190-P J B-AKJ Opin ion No. 2023 DNH 021 v. Roger Willia m s Un iver sit y La w Sch ool OR DE R P la in t iff J im m y Sm it h , a la w sch ool gr a du a t e a ppea r in g pr o se, h a s su ed h is a lm a m a t er , Roger Willia m s U n iver sit y La w Sch ool (RWULS). Mr . Sm it h cla im s t h a t RWULS discr im in a t ed a ga in st h im beca u se of h is r a ce. In vokin g F ed. R. Civ. P . 12(b)(6), RWU LS m oves t o dism iss (Doc. No. 96), a r gu in g t h a t Mr . Sm it h ’s com pla in t fa ils t o st a t e a cla im for r elief. Mr . Sm it h h a s t im ely object ed (Doc. Nos. 98 a n d 100), t o wh ich RWULS h a s r eplied (Doc. No. 99). Th e defen da n t ’s m ot ion is gr a n t ed. Accept in g a ll of Mr . Sm it h ’s well-plea ded fa ct s a s t r u e, t h e cou r t fin ds t h a t Mr . Sm it h h a s fa iled t o st a t e cla im for r a cia l discr im in a t ion . F a ct u a l Ba ck gr ou n d 1 1 Un less in dica t ed ot h er wise, t h e fa ct s a r e t a ken fr om Mr . Sm it h ’s a m en ded com pla in t (Doc. No. 70-2). See Apr il 18, 2022, Repor t a n d Recom m en da t ion (Doc. No. 79) a dopt ed, J u ly 22, 2022 (Doc. No. 95). As t h e cou r t den ied Mr . Sm it h ’s a t t em pt t o in t er pose va r iou s ot h er cla im s in h is a m en ded com pla in t , see id., on ly t h ose fa ct s pot en t ia lly r eleva n t t o Mr . Sm it h ’s r a cia l discr im in a t ion cla im s a r e in clu ded in t h is or der . Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-00190-PJB-AKJ Document 103 Filed 02/27/23 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 1057 Mr . Sm it h , a n Afr ica n Am er ica n , bega n h is st u dies a t RWU LS in 2016, gr a du a t in g in 2021. P r ior t o in it ia t in g t h is la wsu it , Mr . Sm it h su ed RWULS in a sepa r a t e a ct ion . See Sm it h v. Roger Willia m s Un iver sit y La w Sch ool, No. 21-cv-133-P J B-AKJ (D.R.I. filed Ma r . 19, 2021) (“Sm it h I”). Mr . Sm it h a sser t s t h a t RWULS “t ook a dver se a ct ion s” a ga in st h im in r et a lia t ion for filin g Sm it h I, “su bject ed h im t o discr im in a t ion ,” a n d “den ied [h im ] t h e ben efit s of h is edu ca t ion a l pr ogr a m s.” Am . Com pl. (Doc. No. 70-2) ¶ ¶ 33, 81, 82. H e fu r t h er a lleges t h a t RWULS h a s “den ied [h im ] oppor t u n it ies for a dva n cem en t ” a n d “r et a lia t ed a ga in st h im ” du e t o h is r a ce. Id. ¶ ¶ 88-89. In a ddit ion , Mr . Sm it h a sser t s t h a t RWULS “ch er r y-picked a m a le wh o a ppea r s t o be bla ck t o h a ve a n h on or boa r d com pla in t ” a ga in st h im . Id. ¶ 98. Mr . Sm it h fu r t h er a lleges t h a t h e wa s r em oved fr om a F a cebook gr ou p in r et a lia t ion for filin g Sm it h I. In a ddit ion , h e a lleges t h a t h e wa s n ot in vit ed t o t h e fin a l com pet it ion of h is t r ia l cla ss. Id. ¶ 134. An ot h er st u den t wa s a lso n ot pa r t icipa t in g in t h e fin a l t r ia l. Th a t st u den t wa s t h e su bject of a disciplin a r y com pla in t lodged by Mr . Sm it h . Id. ¶ 138. Mr . Sm it h a lso a lleges t h a t RWULS’ lega l a r gu m en t s in Sm it h I a n d t h is ca se a r e r et a lia t ion for h is com pla in t s a bou t r a cia l discr im in a t ion . Id. ¶ 149. In a ddit ion , Mr . Sm it h a lleges t h a t a disciplin a r y com pla in t h e lodged a ga in st a wh it e st u den t wa s r esolved in for m a lly. Id. ¶ 161-62. Mr . Sm it h a lso a lleges t h a t in t h e F a ll of 2019, h e wa s r obbed of $200 by a RWULS em ployee. F in a lly, Mr . Sm it h ’s a m en ded com pla in t con t a in s a ser ies of a llega t ion s per t a in in g t o h is m a il 2 Case 1:21-cv-00190-PJB-AKJ Document 103 Filed 02/27/23 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 1058 bein g “m on it or ed,” ot h er st u den t s u sin g dr u gs, a n d Mr . Sm it h en cou n t er in g a la w sch ool fa cu lt y m em ber a t a ca sin o. Id. ¶ ¶ 202-07, 210-215. P r o c e d u r a l H is t o r y Mr . Sm it h filed h is or igin a l com pla in t (Doc. No. 1) on Apr il 30, 2021. Th e ca se wa s t h en dela yed a ft er Mr . Sm it h a ppea led t h e cou r t ’s den ia l of h is m ot ion for a t em por a r y r est r a in in g or der . See Doc. Nos. 3 (m ot ion ), 19 (a m en ded m ot ion ), Ma y 12, 2021 docket en t r y (den yin g m ot ion ), a n d 28 (n ot ice of a ppea l). On pr elim in a r y r eview, t h e Ma gist r a t e J u dge, con st r u in g t h e pr o se com pla in t liber a lly, a llowed a cla im for r a cia l discr im in a t ion t o pr oceed. Novem ber 18, 2021, Or der (Doc. No. 37). Th e cou r t a llowed t h a t cla im t o pr oceed wit h ou t pr eju dice t o RWULS’s “r igh t t o seek dism issa l or a sser t a n y a va ila ble defen se a va ila ble u n der t h e F eder a l Ru les of Civil P r ocedu r e, . . . .” Id. a t 5. Mr . Sm it h m oved t o a m en d h is com pla in t in Ma r ch 2022. (Doc. N o. 70). Th e cou r t gr a n t ed t h e m ot ion t o a m en d, in pa r t , a llowin g Mr . Sm it h ’s r a cia l discr im in a t ion ca se t o pr oceed pu r su a n t t o st a t e a n d feder a l la ws. See Apr il 18, 2022 Repor t a n d r ecom m en da t ion (Doc. No. 79), a dopt ed J u ly 22, 2022 (Doc. N o. 95). Th e defen da n t ’s t im ely m ot ion t o dism iss is n ow r ipe for r eview. S t a n d a r d o f R e v ie w To su r vive a Ru le 12(b)(6) m ot ion t o dism iss for fa ilu r e t o st a t e a cla im , a pla in t iff m u st m a ke fa ct u a l a llega t ion s su fficien t t o “st a t e a cla im t o r elief 3 Case 1:21-cv-00190-PJB-AKJ Document 103 Filed 02/27/23 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 1059 t h a t is pla u sible on it s fa ce.” Ash cr oft v. Iqba l, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (qu ot in g Bell At l. Cor p. v. Twom bly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Th is st a n da r d “dem a n ds m or e t h a n a n u n a dor n ed, t h e-defen da n t -u n la wfu llyh a r m ed-m e a ccu sa t ion .” Id. A cla im is fa cia lly pla u sible if it “plea ds fa ct u a l con t en t t h a t a llows t h e cou r t t o dr a w t h e r ea son a ble in fer en ce t h a t t h e defen da n t is lia ble for t h e m iscon du ct a lleged.” Id. In t est in g a com pla in t 's su fficien cy, t h e cou r t em ploys a t wo-st ep a ppr oa ch . See Oca sio–H er n á n dez v. F or t u ñ o-Bu r set , 640 F .3d 1, 12 (1st Cir . 2011). F ir st , t h e com pla in t is scr een ed for st a t em en t s t h a t “m er ely offer lega l con clu sion s cou ch ed a s fa ct or t h r ea dba r e r ecit a ls of t h e elem en t s of a ca u se of a ct ion .” Id. (clea n ed u p). A cla im con sist in g of lit t le m or e t h a n “a llega t ion s t h a t m er ely pa r r ot t h e elem en t s of t h e ca u se of a ct ion ” m a y be dism issed. Id. Secon d, a ft er cr edit in g a s t r u e a ll n on -con clu sor y fa ct u a l a llega t ion s a n d t h e r ea son a ble in fer en ces dr a wn fr om t h ose a llega t ion s, t h e cou r t det er m in es if t h e cla im is pla u sible. Id. Th e pla u sibilit y r equ ir em en t “sim ply ca lls for en ou gh fa ct t o r a ise a r ea son a ble expect a t ion t h a t discover y will r evea l eviden ce” of illega l con du ct . Twom bly, 550 U.S. a t 556. Th e “m a ke-or -br ea k st a n da r d” is t h a t t h ose a llega t ion s a n d in fer en ces, “t a ken a s t r u e, m u st st a t e 4 Case 1:21-cv-00190-PJB-AKJ Document 103 Filed 02/27/23 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 1060 a pla u sible, n ot a m er ely con ceiva ble, ca se for r elief.” Sepú lveda –Villa r in i v. Dep't of E du c. of P .R., 628 F .3d 25, 29 (1st Cir . 2010). 2 An a ly s is Mr . Sm it h ’s r a cia l discr im in a t ion cla im s (cou n t s 1, 9, a n d 10 of t h e a m en ded com pla in t ) a r e sepa r a t ely a sser t ed u n der t wo feder a l st a t u t es – 42 U.S.C. § 1981 a n d Tit le VI of t h e Civil Righ t s Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d – a n d t h e Rh ode Isla n d Civil Righ t s Act (“RICRA”), R.I. Gen . La ws § 42-112-1. Sect ion 1981 pr ovides, in r eleva n t pa r t , t h a t “[a ]ll per son s wit h in t h e ju r isdict ion of t h e U n it ed St a t es sh a ll h a ve t h e sa m e r igh t . . . t o m a ke a n d en for ce con t r a ct s . . . a n d t o t h e fu ll a n d equ a l ben efit of a ll la ws a n d pr oceedin gs ... a s is en joyed by wh it e cit izen s . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a ). Tit le VI pr ovides t h a t “[n ]o per son . . . sh a ll, on t h e gr ou n d of r a ce, color , or n a t ion a l or igin , be exclu ded fr om pa r t icipa t ion in , be den ied t h e ben efit s of, or be su bject ed t o discr im in a t ion u n der a n y pr ogr a m or a ct ivit y r eceivin g 2 Th e cou r t r eject s Mr . Sm it h ’s a r gu m en t t h a t dism issa l u n der Ru le 12(b)(6) for fa ilu r e t o st a t e a cla im is pr eclu ded by t h e Ma gist r a t e J u dge a llowin g t h ose cla im s t o pr oceed. In t h e fir st in st a n ce, t h e Ma gist r a t e J u dge’s ser vice or der (Doc. No. 37) wa s issu ed “wit h ou t pr eju dice t o t h e defen da n t ’s a bilit y t o m ove t o dism iss t h e cla im s on a n y a ppr opr ia t e ba sis.” Id. a t 5. Next , t h e cou r t is disin clin ed t o depr ive t h e defen da n t of it s r igh t t o seek r elief u n der t h e F eder a l Ru les of Civil P r ocedu r e by essen t ia lly con sider in g it s m ot ion t o be “den ied” befor e it wa s ever filed, or t h e defen da n t h a d a n oppor t u n it y t o pr esen t lega l a r gu m en t . See Alem a n v. Da r t , No. 09cv-6049, 2010 WL 4876720, a t *3-4 (N .D. Ill. N ov. 23, 2010) (r eject in g a pplica t ion of “la w of t h e ca se” doct r in e t o defen da n t ’s m ot ion t o dism iss pr o se com pla in t t h a t wa s a llowed t o pr oceed a ft er pr elim in a r y r eview). 5 Case 1:21-cv-00190-PJB-AKJ Document 103 Filed 02/27/23 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 1061 F eder a l fin a n cia l a ssist a n ce.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. RICRA sim ila r ly pr ot ect s a ga in st discr im in a t ion ba sed on on e's “r a ce, color , r eligion , sex, disa bilit y, a ge, or cou n t r y of a n cest r a l or igin .” R.I. Gen . La ws § 42-112-1. Wh ile t h e t h r ee r eleva n t st a t u t es a r e n ot iden t ica l, t h ey a ll r equ ir e fa ct u a l a llega t ion s su fficien t t o su ppor t a pla u sible cla im t h a t RWU LS a ct ed wit h discr im in a t or y in t en t . See Doe v. Br own Un iv., 43 F .4t h 195, 208 (1st Cir . 2022). H er e, st r ipped of con clu sor y fa ct u a l a llega t ion s, t h e cou r t fin ds t h a t Mr . Sm it h h a s fa iled t o plea d fa ct s su fficien t t o su ppor t a pla u sible cla im t h a t RWULS discr im in a t ed a ga in st h im beca u se of h is r a ce. F ir st , t h e cou r t ca n fin d n o pla u sible ba sis for Mr . Sm it h ’s cla im t h a t RWULS’s defen se in t h is ca se or Sm it h I bea r s a n y h in t of r et a lia t ion , let a lon e r et a lia t ion ba sed on Mr . Sm it h ’s r a ce. Next , a n d m or e im por t a n t ly, Mr . Sm it h ’s a m en ded com pla in t offer s on ly va gu e a n d con clu sor y a llega t ion s a bou t r a cia l discr im in a t ion . In deed, t h e on ly n on -con clu sor y fa ct u a l a llega t ion Mr . Sm it h t ies t o h is r a ce is t h a t a disciplin a r y com pla in t h e lodged a ga in st a wh it e st u den t wa s r esolved in for m a lly. Am . Com pl. (Doc. No. 70-2) ¶ 161-62. Bu t h e offer s n o fa ct s fr om wh ich it ca n be pla u sibly in fer r ed t h a t h e wa s t r ea t ed differ en t ly or t h a t t h is r esolu t ion wa s r a ceba sed. See Doe v. Am h er st Coll., 238 F . Su pp. 3d 195, 224 (D. Ma ss. 2017) (gr a n t in g ju dgm en t on t h e plea din gs t o college wh er e pla in t iff fa iled t o a llege t h a t “ot h er st u den t s wh o wer e fou n d r espon sible for sim ila r viola t ion s a n d r eceived lesser pu n ish m en t s.”). Nor -- given t h a t Mr . Sm it h h im self wa s 6 Case 1:21-cv-00190-PJB-AKJ Document 103 Filed 02/27/23 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 1062 in volved in t h e com pla in t n ot ed a bove -- is t h is a sit u a t ion wh er e m or e det a ils a r e “likely wit h in [t h e defen da n t ’s] con t r ol. See Doe v. Tr . of Da r t m ou t h Coll., Civ. No. 21-cv-83-J D, 2021 WL 2857518 a t *8 (D.N.H . J u ly 8. 2021). In h is object ion , Mr . Sm it h poin t s t o pa r a gr a ph 89 of h is a m en ded com pla in t , wh er e h e a sser t s t h a t RWULS h a s “r et a lia t ed a ga in st m e a n d t r ea t ed m e differ en t ly du e t o eit h er m y r a ce, color a n d/or sex.” Th is is in su fficien t t o wit h st a n d a m ot ion t o dism iss, a s it pr esen t s n o fa ct u a l a llega t ion s u n der pin n in g t h e lega l con clu sion a sser t ed. See Doe v. Br own Un iv., 43 F .4 t h a t 413 (fin din g a llega t ion s of r a cia l discr im in a t ion su fficien t wh er e pla in t iff a lleged fa ct s su ppor t in g h is cla im t h a t wh it e st u den t s wer e per m it t ed t o exer cise cer t a in r igh t s t h a t h e wa s n ot a n d t h a t a college officia l u sed a der oga t or y slu r a ga in st h im ). Mor eover , m a n y of t h e fa ct u a l a llega t ion s in t h e a m en ded com pla in t u n der cu t a cla im of bein g t r ea t ed differ en t ly. F or exa m ple, h e a lleges t h a t h e wa s n ot in vit ed t o t h e fin a l com pet it ion of h is t r ia l cla ss. Am . Com pl. (Doc. No. 70-2) ¶ 134. H e a lso a lleges t h a t a n ot h er st u den t , wh o wa s t h e su bject of a disciplin a r y com pla in t lodged by Mr . Sm it h , a lso did n ot pa r t icipa t e in t h e fin a l t r ia l. In ot h er wor ds, t h is a sser t ion su ggest s equ a l t r ea t m en t , n ot discr im in a t or y t r ea t m en t . Sim ila r ly, Mr . Sm it h con clu sor ily a sser t s, wit h ou t a n y fa ct u a l su ppor t , t h a t h e wa s r em oved fr om a F a cebook pa ge beca u se of h is r a ce, bu t con cedes t h a t h e post ed a ccu sa t ion s on t h a t F a cebook pa ge of 7 Case 1:21-cv-00190-PJB-AKJ Document 103 Filed 02/27/23 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 1063 dr u g-dea lin g by a m em ber of t h e RWULS com m u n it y a n d t h a t a feder a l ju dge a ssocia t ed wit h RWULS wa s “m on it or in g” h im . Id. ¶ 94, 153. In t h e a bsen ce of a n y fa ct u a l a llega t ion wh ich ca n su ppor t a pla u sible cla im for r elief, Mr . Sm it h h a s fa iled t o st a t e a cla im for r a cia l discr im in a t ion . C o n c lu s io n Ba sed on t h e for egoin g, t h e defen da n t ’s m ot ion t o dism iss (Doc. No. 96) is gr a n t ed. SO ORDE RE D. /s/ P a u l J . Ba r ba dor o P a u l J . Ba r ba dor o Un it ed St a t es Dist r ict J u dge F ebr u a r y 27, 2023 cc: J im m y Sm it h , pr o se St even M. Rich a r d, E sq. 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
