Arpino v. Bresciano

          RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

          VICTOR A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Holly 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.

         Defendants 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.

         For the following reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

         I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         A. Factual Background

         Ms. 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.

         Ms. 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. Id.

         Second, 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. Arpino. Id.

         B. Procedural History

         On 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.

         On 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. 12, 13.

         On May 23, 2018, the Court issued a scheduling order regarding the Answer deadline for defendants. ECF No. 26.

         On June 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.

         On July 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.

         II. ...