Melendez v. Univ. of N.H.

1

Michael Melendez v. University of New Hampshire, et al.

Civil No. 23-cv-00172-SM-TSM

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

July 2, 2024

Michael Melendez, pro se Counsel of record

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT

TALESHA L. SAINT-MARC UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Michael Melendez (“Melendez”), who proceeds pro se, was enrolled as a student at the University of New Hampshire's Franklin Pierce Law School (“UNH Law”) from August 2020 to September 2023, when he was disenrolled from the program. On March 3, 2023, Melendez filed this action against the University of New Hampshire (“UNH”) and three of its employees, asserting claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Melendez has since amended his complaint three times, each time adding new defendants and new claims. In his Fourth Amended Complaint, which is the operative complaint, Melendez names twenty-one separate defendants and asserts eighteen causes of action. Now, Melendez moves for leave to supplement his complaint (Doc. No. 42) and seeks to add another two defendants, including an unnamed individual who works in the information technology (“IT”) department at UNH and Attorney Gregory Manousos, defendants' lead litigation counsel in this case, and to assert four additional causes of action. Defendants, who moved to dismiss each iteration of Melendez's complaint, oppose the instant motion on the grounds that the supplemental claims are futile and would cause Defendants undue prejudice, and because Melendez failed to comply with Local Rule 7.1(c) before filing his motion. For all the reasons detailed below, this court concludes that Melendez's proposed claims are futile and would cause undue prejudice to defendants. Therefore, this court recommends that Melendez's motion to supplement be DENIED.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Where as here, a motion to supplement a complaint is opposed on the basis of futility, the proposed supplement “is gauged by reference to the liberal criteria of Rule 12(b)(6)[.]” Gascard v. Franklin Pierce Univ., No. 14-cv-220-JL, 2015 WL 1097485, at *8 (D.N.H. Mar. 11, 2015) (quotations and citation omitted). Accordingly, the court must “accept as true all well-pleaded facts set forth in the [proposed] complaint and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the [plaintiff's] favor.” Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d 39, 46 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Artuso v. Vertex Pharm., Inc., 637 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2011)). The court “may augment these facts and inferences with data points gleaned from documents incorporated by reference into the complaint, matters of public record, and facts susceptible to judicial notice.” Id. Because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court must construe his allegations liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (documents filed pro se must “be liberally construed” (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). However, the court will “not credit ‘bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like.'” Redondo-Borges v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 421 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1996)). Applying this standard to the instant case, the relevant facts are as follows.^[1]

Relevant Procedural History

Melendez filed his initial complaint in this action on March 3, 2023. Doc. No. 1. Therein, Melendez named UNH and three individuals as defendants and asserted six claims. Id. Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss on June 16, 2023. Doc. No. 6. Seven days later, on June 23, 2023, Melendez filed an assented-to motion to amend his complaint. Doc. No. 13. The court allowed plaintiff's motion to amend and denied defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice. In his First Amended Complaint, Melendez named UNH and eight individual defendants and asserted six different causes of action, including claims for violations of the ADA, claims for violations of the Rehabilitation Act and claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). Doc. No. 15.

On September 22, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Doc. No. 19. Instead of filing an opposition to defendants' motion, Melendez filed another motion for leave to amend his complaint. Doc. No. 24. On October 31, 2023, the court denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint without prejudice on the grounds that the proposed complaint was excessively long and unnecessarily redundant, and gave Melendez until November 30, 2023, to file a renewed motion to amend his complaint.

On November 29, 2023, plaintiff filed a third motion for leave to amend his complaint. Doc. No. 28. Defendants opposed the motion on the grounds that the proposed amendments were futile and defendants would suffer undue prejudice if the court were to grant it. Doc. No. 29. On December 14, 2023, the court determined that defendants' objections should be addressed in the context of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, after both parties had a more complete opportunity to develop their arguments for or against the dismissal of the complaint. Therefore, it granted Melendez's motion to amend the complaint and denied defendants' pending motion to dismiss without prejudice. In his Third Amended Complaint, Melendez named UNH, nineteen individuals, and defense counsel's law firm, Morgan, Brown and Joy, LLP (“Morgan, Brown”), as defendants in the case, and alleged twenty-eight causes of action, including claims for ADA violations, defamation, racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, conspiracy, due process violations and casting the plaintiff in a false light. Doc. No. 30.

Defendants moved to dismiss, with prejudice, the Third Amended Complaint in its entirety. Doc. No. 32. On January 10, 2024, Melendez opposed defendants' motion to dismiss. Doc. No. 35. At the same time, Melendez filed another motion for leave to amend his complaint and file a Fourth Amended Complaint wherein he proposed to remove certain claims and amend his false light claims “to address deficiencies” discussed by defendants in their pending motion to dismiss. See Doc. No. 36-1. Defendants did not oppose the motion, but they reserved their right to refile their motion to dismiss after the Fourth Amended Complaint was filed.

Given defendants' position, the court allowed Melendez's motion for leave to amend his complaint and denied the pending motion to dismiss without prejudice. However, the court expressly cautioned plaintiff as follows:

this case has been pending since March 3, 2023 and . . . “protracted delay, with its attendant burdens on the opponent and the court, is itself a sufficient reason for the court to withhold permission to amend.” Steir v. Girl Scouts of the USA, 383 F.3d 7, 12 (1st Cir. 2004). Consequently, any further motions to amend will be viewed with greater scrutiny.

In his Fourth Amended Complaint, which is the operative complaint in this action, Melendez continues to name UNH, Morgan, Brown and nineteen individuals as defendants, and to maintain eighteen separate claims for relief. See Doc. No. 38.

On February 2, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint in its entirety and with prejudice. Doc. No. 39. Melendez filed an opposition to that motion on February 16, 2024. Doc. No. 41. On March 18, 2023, while the motion to dismiss remained pending, Melendez filed the instant motion for leave to supplement his complaint, which defendants oppose.

Melendez's Alleged Disabilities

This action arises out of events that occurred between August 2020 and September 2023, when Melendez was enrolled as a law student at UNH Law. See Fifth Complaint ¶ 224. Melendez alleges he was diagnosed with a number of mental health disorders, including combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder, insomnia, paranoia, major depressive disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which rendered him disabled. See id. ¶¶ 30, 61. He further alleges that both the Department of Veteran's Affairs and the Social Security Administration rated him 100% disabled. Id. ¶ 31. Although Melendez does not state when he was diagnosed with his various mental health disorders or when he was rated 100% disabled, he alleges that he was “excluded from participating in a public entity's [UNH Law's] program or benefit, [or] class, by reason of his disabilities . . .” from August 2022 through December 2022. Id. ¶ 61.

Plaintiff alleges that his mental health disorders interfered with his ability to understand instructions and to learn new information. Id. ¶ 67. As a result, Melendez alleges he had difficulty understanding the requirements of his law school courses, as well as the instructions for completing specific assignments. Id. ¶ 66. He further alleges that the symptoms resulting from his impairments were “significantly aggravated by being in public[,]” and that the aggravation of his symptoms rendered him mentally incapable of completing social, work-related, or other necessary tasks. Id. ¶¶ 62-63. As described below, this made it difficult for him to attend classes in person.

Melendez's Requests for Accommodations

Melendez's first year of law school, which began in the fall of 2020 took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. ¶ 124. Due to the pandemic, Melendez's classes were initially remote, and he alleges he successfully completed his first two years of law school.^[2] Id. ¶¶ 125-26, 268. Melendez alleges, however, that things changed in August 2022 (fall semester), the start of his third year of law school, when UNH resumed in-person...