David DuBay v. University of New England

DuBay · United States District Court for the District of Maine · June 2, 2026 · No. 2:25-cv-00508-LEW

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maine dismisses without prejudice a pro se plaintiff’s claims against the University of New England alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. The Court concludes that the complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to satisfy the plausibility standard and grants leave to amend within 30 days. The Court also denies the plaintiff’s motion for reasonable accommodations and Rule 17(c) protective measures.

Holdings

  1. The complaint failed to state plausible claims because, after conclusory allegations were disregarded, it lacked sufficient factual content concerning the requested accommodations, their purpose or reasonableness, the services allegedly denied, and the causal connection between Plaintiff's complaints and the adverse actions.
  2. Pro se pleadings are liberally construed, but pro se status does not excuse compliance with procedural and substantive law or eliminate the requirement to plead sufficient factual content.
  3. Plaintiff could not use his opposition and attached exhibits to expand the claims and factual allegations presented in the complaint; a new complaint was required to define the scope of the litigation.
  4. Rule 17(c) did not apply because Plaintiff was neither a minor nor an incompetent person, and the court denied the requested blanket protective order and appointment of counsel.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint alleged sufficient nonconclusory facts to state plausible disability-discrimination and retaliation claims.
  2. Whether Plaintiff could rely on new legal theories and factual allegations raised for the first time in his opposition to the motion to dismiss.
  3. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to accommodations, protective measures, or appointment of a guardian ad litem under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c).
  4. Whether dismissal should be with prejudice or without prejudice and accompanied by an opportunity to amend.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (6)

  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Ocasio-Henandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(followed)
  • Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)(followed)
  • Livingston v. BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., 625 F. Supp. 3d 1, 2 (D. Mass. 2022)(followed)
  • DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…