UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MOISES-LENA JEAN-LOUIS, Plaintiff, 22-CV-1263 (LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL LONG ISLAND BUSINESS INSTITUTE, et al., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under

, seeking to recover monies paid to Defendants through federal financial aid. By order dated June 2, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the following reasons, the Court dismisses the complaint. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co.,

(2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills,

(2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,

(2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases,

(citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). A claim is facially

plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly,

. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings this action against the Long Island Business Institute (LIBI) and the Professional Business College (PBC), identified as nonprofit schools, and Leon Lee, identified as

President, presumably of one of the schools. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants “offered college education while unpermitted by State.” (ECF 1, at 4.) In particular, she claims that from 2011 to 2014, the PBC withdrew funds from her “FAFSA tuition.”1 At some point, Plaintiff “was provided with a degree that was unaccredited and [her] credits were nontransferable.” (Id.) She makes the same allegations against LIBI for the 2014-2015 school year.

1 FAFSA is presumably a reference to the Federal Student Aid Program. The form used to apply for federal financial aid is the Free Application for Federal Student Aid form. Plaintiff seeks full reimbursement of all tuition charged from 2011 to 2015, to her FAFSA account. She seeks $13,923.00 from PBC, and $5,730.00 from LIBI. DISCUSSION A. Claims under

Plaintiff brings this action under

, asserting that Defendants violated her

rights by providing degrees that were unaccredited. To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States has been violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins,

(1988). Private parties generally are not liable under the statute. Sykes v. Bank of America,

(2d Cir. 2013) (citing Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n,

(2001)); see also Ciambriello v. Cnty. of Nassau,

(2d Cir. 2002) (“[T]he United States Constitution regulates only the Government, not private parties.”). As Plaintiff has alleged no facts suggesting that Defendants LIBI, PBC, or Lee – private entities and a private individual – have acted as state actors or that their actions could be

attributed to the state, Defendants are not subject to liability under Section 1983. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1983 for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See

(e)(2)(B)(ii). B. Claims under state saw Plaintiff’s assertions could suggest state-law claims sounding in contract or fraud.2 A district court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims

2 Because Plaintiff alleges that she and Defendants are citizens of New York State, see ECF 2, at 2-3, the Court lacks diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under

to consider Plaintiff’s state law claims. when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

(c)(3). Generally, “when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,

, 350 n.7 (1988)). Having dismissed the federal claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its

supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting. See Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp.,

, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (“Subsection (c) of § 1367 ‘confirms the discretionary nature of supplemental jurisdiction by enumerating the circumstances in which district courts can refuse its exercise.’”) (quoting City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons,

(1997)). C. Leave to amend is denied District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, but leave to amend is not required where it would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione,

, 123–24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo,

(2d Cir. 1988).

Because Plaintiff’s factual allegations indicate that the defects in Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s complaint, filed IFP under

(a)(1), is dismissed pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii). All other pending matters in this case are terminated. The Court certifies under

(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: June 27, 2022 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge