Isabella Rae Abbruzzese v. Stephen F. Austin State University and UT System

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas partially adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in an action brought by Isabella Rae Abbruzzese against Stephen F. Austin State University and the UT System. The court dismissed numerous claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim, denied the motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction as moot, and allowed limited amendment of Title IX retaliation and ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims. The court also granted defendants’ motion to stay discovery until the filing of a third amended complaint.

Holdings

1. When a party does not specifically object to recommendations in a magistrate judge's report, the district court reviews those recommendations for clear error rather than conducting de novo review.
2. Plaintiff failed to plead facts showing a qualifying disability for her ADA and Rehabilitation Act failure-to-accommodate and discrimination claims, and failed to plead that the challenged decision occurred solely because of her disability for her Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim.
3. Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient factual detail connecting protected activity temporally to alleged retaliation and failed to plead the facts necessary to meet the high deliberate-indifference standard.
4. Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against SFA and the UT System were barred by sovereign immunity, and Ex parte Young did not apply because Plaintiff did not name individual state officials as defendants in their official capacities.
5. Plaintiff was granted fourteen days to file a third amended complaint limited to Title IX retaliation, ADA and Rehabilitation Act failure-to-accommodate claims, ADA and Rehabilitation Act discrimination claims, and ADA retaliation, but amendment was denied as futile for the proposed § 1983 procedural due process, Fourth Amendment, and equal protection claims.
6. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was moot.
7. Discovery was stayed until Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the magistrate judge's unobjected recommendations should be reviewed for clear error and adopted.
2. Whether Plaintiff adequately pleaded qualifying disability, discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, and retaliation claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
3. Whether Plaintiff adequately pleaded Title IX retaliation and deliberate-indifference claims.
4. Whether the named university defendants were subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity on Plaintiff's § 1983 claims and whether Ex parte Young could apply without naming individual state officials in their official capacities.
5. Whether Plaintiff should receive leave to file a third amended complaint and which claims could be repleaded.
6. Whether Plaintiff's procedural due process, Fourth Amendment, and equal protection claims could be cured by amendment.
7. Whether Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was moot.
8. Whether discovery should be stayed pending amendment of the complaint.

Disposition

other