Stankevich v. Kaplan

156 F.Supp.3d 86

Andrew J. Stankevich, Plaintiff,

v.Sabina Kaplan, Mississippi College, and Joseph Ragland, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 15–827 (RCL)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed January 14, 2016

Filed January 15, 2016

Andrew J. Stankevich, Fairfax, VA, pro se.

James Brennan Cooney, New York State Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, Alexander S. Polonsky, Brad Fagg, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P., Washington, DC, H. Barber Boone, Butler Snow LLP, Ridgeland, MS, Walter H. Boone, Balch & Bingham, LLP, Jackson, MS, for Defendants.

Joseph Ragland, Jackson, MS, pro se.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge

Before the Court are defendant Mississippi College's Motion [22] to Dismiss plaintiff's “corrected” complaint,¹ defendant Sabina Kaplan's Motion [36] to Dismiss plaintiff's “corrected” complaint, plaintiff's Motion [38] for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff's Motion [49] for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, and defendant Mississippi College's Motion [45] for Sanctions. Upon consideration of the motions, oppositions, replies, the entire record in this case, and the applicable law, the Court will GRANT defendant Mississippi College's Motion [22] to Dismiss, GRANT defendant Sabina Kaplan's Motion [36] to dismiss, DENY both plaintiffs Motion [38] for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint and Motion [49] for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, and DENY defendant Mississippi College's Motion [45] for Sanctions. The Court will also sua sponte dismiss plaintiff's claim against defendant Joseph Ragland pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

I. BACKGROUND

In the present action, plaintiff Andrew J. Stankevich asserts two claims. The first claim is brought under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (“RICO”) against defendants Mississippi College (“MC”), Joseph Ragland, and Sabina Kaplan, the Superintendent of Bedford Hills Correctional Facility (“BHCF”) in New York state. The second is brought against Mississippi College for breach of contract.² The claims are rooted in the alleged harms plaintiff suffered as a student at Mississippi College School of Law (“MC Law”) and in the defendants' alleged interference with plaintiff's relationship with Joyce Powell, an inmate at BHCF.

Plaintiff enrolled in MC Law in the fall of 2009. Corrected Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 15. Although he graduated in 2014, plaintiff's time at MC Law was tumultuous. While enrolled at MC Law, plaintiff issued formal complaints with the ABA and the U.S. Department of Education, id. at ¶ 6, engaged in heated and prolonged disputes with professors, id. at ¶ 7, and posted a provocative statement on Facebook that MC Law considered threatening.³ Id. at ¶ 24.

These conflicts were in part fueled by plaintiff's belief that MC Law is a racist and homophobic institution. Indeed, many of plaintiff's present allegations were first lodged in formal complaints he submitted to the ABA concerning MC Law's allegedly discriminatory policies. Id. at ¶¶ 6-14. Essentially, plaintiff claims MC Law “provided no warning” of its stance against “on-campus LGBT student group[s].” Id. at ¶ 2. Plaintiff challenged these and other policies in formal ABA complaints on April 30, 2012 and December 31, 2012. Id. at ¶ 5. Adding to his grievances, Stankevich also alleges that a MC Law professor “falsely portrayed the Plaintiff as a 'blatant liar,”' and provided the ABA with false records and fraudulent psychological reports in connection with subsequent ABA investigations. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 7, 15-16.

In addition to the charges embedded in plaintiff's ABA complaints, Stankevich asserts additional facts to support his theory that MC Law treated him unfairly and subjected him to a hostile educational environment. Id. at ¶ 5. For example, he alleges the school discouraged students from verifying his accounts of harassment. Id. at ¶ 17. He even goes so far as to claim that an assistant dean “intimidated” him into not reporting to the Department of Education or law enforcement anonymous rape threats he received. Id. at ¶ 10. Further, in his pleadings, Stankevich emphasizes that the Dean of MC Law “and others staged a hoax in December 2011 to depict the plaintiff as a danger to the law school.” Id. at ¶ 22. To perpetrate this hoax, the law school allegedly first arranged for a student to “shout[ ] praise for Adolf Hitler,” knowing that one of plaintiff's family members had survived the Holocaust. Id. at ¶ 23. Next, when Stankevich complained about this incident to the law school's professors, the professors told him to “suck it up,” explaining that the Klu Klux Klan was once prevalent in Mississippi. Id. at ¶¶ 23-24. Reacting to the school's offensive behavior, plaintiff wrote on Facebook, “it would be funny if God smites MC Law and MC undergrad, the staff and students who deserve such, die a terrible death. Ha ha ha ha.” Id. at ¶ 24. As stated, Stankevich believes that this series of events—including his own Facebook post—all took place according to the design of an elaborate “hoax” MC Law concocted and carried out to marginalize plaintiff and “depict him as a danger to the law school.” Id. at ¶ 22.

Although MC Law neither expelled nor suspended Stankevich for posting this statement, plaintiff argues that the school imposed a disproportionate punishment, and at times, used the incident as an excuse to unfairly target and harass him. Citing security concerns, the university “permanently barred [plaintiff] from calling, entering the campus, or ... attending his Spring 2014 graduation ceremony,” id. at ¶ 25, and forced him to take final exams under watch of security guards. Id. at ¶ 27. Plaintiff also alleges the Dean of MC Law demanded the FBI arrest him and used an online survey to “elicit prejudicial testimony to justify banning the Plaintiff from campus.” Id. at ¶¶ 27-28. Further, Stankevich asserts the Dean “ordered the Plaintiff to undergo an intentionally unfair psychological examination to undermine the Plaintiff's credibility.” Id. at ¶ 33. This allegedly fraudulent examination determined plaintiff may be physically violent, id. at ¶ 36, a result which plaintiff claims contradicts two “other [psychological] evaluations [that] found plaintiff to be peaceful and safe.” Id. at ¶ 36.

After making these charges against MC Law, plaintiff attempts to connect the law school's alleged misdeeds with plaintiff's failed attempts to represent Joyce Powell, an inmate at New York's BHCF, in a habeas corpus petition. After Powell's habeas petition was filed in the Western District of New York, Stankevich—while still a student at MC Law—allegedly filed a second and separate motion, captioned Stankevich v. Netburn , requesting “that the court allow [Stankevich] to litigate Powell's habeas petition as a non-attorney.” Id. at ¶ 40. Plaintiff asserts that Powell “said she would send letters indicating her support of Netburn” but later withdrew her approval, in a correspondence plaintiff believes was “ghost-written by MC [Law].” Id. at ¶ 44. Further, Stankevich also claims “BHCF corruptly caused Powell to recant” her support for his Netburn petition. Id. at ¶ 56. Adding to his allegations surrounding the habeas petition, plaintiff claims BHCF denied him access to visit Powell, id. at ¶ 58, obstructed the delivery of his mail and packages to Powell, id. at ¶¶ 59, 72, and otherwise harassed him. Id. at ¶ 76.

In addition to his grievances against MC Law and Sabina Kaplan, Stankevieh also brings a RICO claim against Joseph Ragland. Plaintiff paid $1,000 to Joseph Ragland, a practicing lawyer in Clinton, MS and former professor at MC Law, in connection with plaintiff's efforts to represent Powell in her habeas petition. Id. at ¶ 60. Although Ragland returned the $1,000 to avoid discipline from the state bar, id. at ¶ 62, plaintiff claims that Ragland “launch[ed] an extortion racket through BHCF.” Id. at ¶ 70. Moreover, plaintiff alleges that Ragland maintains ties with MC Law, as a former professor “who lives within walking distance” of the university. Pl. Andrew Stankevich's Answer to the Def. Mississippi College's Mot. to Dismiss 3, ECF No. 41.

Based on these allegations, plaintiff has brought a RICO claim against all three defendants and a breach of contract claim against MC Law. Defendants Kaplan and MC have moved to dismiss these claims for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(2) and for failure to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6). Although defendant Ragland has not submitted a separate motion to dismiss, he echoes the same arguments in his answer, stating that plaintiff has “fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Second Answer, Objs., and Affirmative Defenses ¶ 1, ECF No. 39. Moreover, defendant Ragland submitted a filing stating that he “concurs and joins in with Defendant MC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6).” Obj. to Pl.'s Mot. for Leave to File a Third Am. Compl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 50.

II. MOTIONS TO DISMISS

The Court does not have personal jurisdiction over defendants Kaplan and MC and will therefore grant their motions to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(2). After conceding the jurisdictional argument in his response to defendant MC's motion to dismiss,⁴ plaintiff requested that the Court transfer this case to the Southern District of New York pursuant to its powers under 28 U.S.C § 1406(a).⁵ Finding “substantive problems” with plaintiff's asserted claims, Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt , 722 F.2d 779, 789 (D.C.Cir.1983), the Court will dismiss this case in its entirety and decline to transfer it to the Southern District of New York.

Unlike defendants Kaplan and MC, defendant Ragland has not submitted a motion to dismiss; however, the Court will sua sponte dismiss plaintiff's claim against him for failure to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6).

A) Defendants Kaplan and...