United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Arpino (“Ms. Arpino”) proceeding pro se
has sued Karen Bresciano, Peggy Sellech, and the University
of Connecticut (collectively “Defendants”) under
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1983ed, and 2000d. Ms. Arpino
alleges that the Defendants violated her civil rights by
delaying her fall 2015 enrollment at the University of
Connecticut and emergency loan disbursement until after she
was temporarily disabled from an injury.
have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on which relief
can be granted.
following reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Arpino allegedly enrolled at the University of Connecticut in
the summer of 2015. ECF No. 1. On July 24, 2015, she
allegedly sustained an injury. Id. at 3. Ms. Arpino
alleges that she was denied enrollment for the fall semester
because she owed the University of Connecticut approximately
$1, 200. Id.
Arpino claims allegedly flow from two issues: her inability
to register for fall 2015 classes and the unavailability of
emergency student loans to assist her in registering. First,
a temporary disability, for more than thirty days during the
summer of 2015 session, allegedly caused her to owe $1, 200
to the University of Connecticut. ECF No. 1. This debt
allegedly caused a three-week delay in her fall
enrollment-but only after Ms. Arpino filed an administrative
complaint with the university. Id. at 3. Ms. Arpino
further contends that Ms. Sellech, University of
Connecticut's Bursar, did not allow her to register, even
though she allegedly permitted other students to register
while stilled owing the University of Connecticut money.
Ms. Arpino alleges that Ms. Bresciano, then acting as the
Dean of Students, purposefully and willfully misled Ms.
Arpino regarding emergency financial aid. ECF No. 1. Ms.
Arpino contends that Ms. Bresciano knew of her injury and
falsely told her that there were no emergency student loans
for the summer session. Id. at 4. Ms. Arpino,
however, claims that Ms. Bresciano neglected to mention that
the University of Connecticut recently started a new grant
program to address this type of situation. Id.
Finally, Ms. Arpino asserts that Ms. Bresciano purposely
created delays and arbitrary limitations on emergency student
loans, which led to catastrophic financial problems for Ms.
January 31, 2018, Ms. Arpino filed this Complaint against Ms.
Bresciano, Ms. Sellech, and the University of Connecticut.
ECF No. 1. On the same day, Mr. Arpino moved for leave to go
ahead in forma pauperis, and the Court issued a
standing protective order. ECF Nos. 2, 5. On February 12,
2018, the Court referred to Magistrate Judge William
Garfinkel Ms. Arpino's motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, which the Court denied without prejudice
on February 26, 2018. ECF Nos. 7, 10.
March 6, 2018, Ms. Arpino moved again for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. ECF No. 11. Two days later, the
Court again referred the motion to Magistrate Judge
Garfinkel, which was then granted on March 16, 2018. ECF Nos.
23, 2018, the Court issued a scheduling order regarding the
Answer deadline for defendants. ECF No. 26.
1, 2018, Ms. Bresciano, Ms. Sellech, and the University of
Connecticut moved to stay the Rule 26(f) requirements, which
the Court denied without prejudice. ECF no. 27, 28. On June
20, 2018, the parties filed a report of the 26(f) planning
meeting. ECF No. 30. The next day, the Court issued an order
requiring the parties to file an amended Rule 26(f) report,
thirty days after the Court rules on Defendants' motion
to dismiss. ECF No. 31.
23, 2018, Ms. Bresciano, Ms. Sellech, and the University of
Connecticut moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. ECF No. 32. Defendants also
noticed Ms. Arpino concerning the motion to dismiss. ECF No.
33. Ms. Arpino has not yet responded.