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
v. Opin ion No. 2023 DNH 021
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 .
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
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
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
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. 09-cv-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
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
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
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