The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
RAJ K. PATEL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No.
v. ) 24-10180-FDS
)
UNITED STATES, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SAYLOR, C.J.
Raj K. Patel, a resident of Zionsville, Indiana, initiated this action by filing several
motions and a complaint against the United States of America and several components of
Harvard University. He is proceeding pro se.
For the reasons stated below, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and the matter will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The motions for electronic notice
and filing will be denied as moot.
I. Background
The amended complaint identifies as defendants the United States, the Harvard
Corporation, Harvard University, the President and Fellows of Harvard University, the Harvard
Undergraduate Admissions Committee, Harvard Law School, and the Harvard Law School
Admissions Committee. Am. Compl. at ¶ 5.
The amended complaint asserts 44 counts under federal law and the laws of a variety of
different states. The principal claim is that defendants violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d, 2000bb, by using discriminatory admission policies. Id. at ¶¶ 6, 11.
Plaintiff describes his race and national origin as Asian, South Asian, or East Indian, and alleges
that he plans to run for President of the United States. Id. at ¶¶ 10(b), (d).
According to the amended complaint, in 2009, plaintiff sought admission to join the
Harvard undergraduate class of 2014. Id. at ¶ 12(b). In 2014, he sought admission to join the
Harvard Law School class of 2018. Id. at ¶ 12(c). The amended complaint notes that in
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181
(2023), the United States Supreme Court held that Harvard “discriminated against Asian-
American applicants.” Id. at ¶ 14. Plaintiff contends that he “would have been admitted to
Harvard University [College and Law School] without the illegal and unconstitutional
discrimination found by the Supreme Court.” Id. at ¶ 15.
The amended complaint also asserts several state-law claims, including breach of
contract, fraud, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at ¶¶ 30-
146. It alleges that the defendants intentionally conspired against him in order to deprive him of
admission into Harvard College and Harvard Law School. Id. at ¶¶ 158-175. For relief, plaintiff
seeks (among other things) $11 billion in damages and an apology. Id. at ¶¶ 196-202.
II. Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
With his complaint, plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed in District Court without
Prepaying Fees or Costs, also referred to as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
After review of the application, the court concludes that plaintiff is without assets to pay the
filing fee and will allow the motion.
III. Screening of the Complaint
When a plaintiff seeks to file a complaint without prepayment of the filing fee,
summonses do not issue until the court reviews the complaint and determines that it satisfies the
substantive requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915 authorizes federal courts to dismiss
a complaint sua sponte if the claims therein lack an arguable basis in law or in fact, fail to state a
claim on which relief can be granted, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
When examining the sufficiency of the pleadings, the court considers whether the
complaint has pleaded “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(citation omitted).
“In evaluating whether a complaint states a plausible claim, [the court performs a] ‘two-
step analysis.’” Saldivar v. Racine, 818 F.3d 14, 18 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Cardigan Mountain
Sch. v. N.H. Ins. Co., 787 F.3d 82, 84 (1st Cir. 2015)). “First, the court must distinguish ‘the
complaint’s factual allegations (which must be accepted as true) from its conclusory legal
allegations (which need not be credited).’” Garcia-Catalan v. United States, 734 F.3d 100, 103
(1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Morales-Cruz v. Univ. of P.R., 676 F.3d 220, 224 (1st Cir. 2012)).
Second, the court must determine whether the factual allegations present a “reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d 39, 46
(1st Cir. 2011).
In conducting its review, the court must liberally construe the amended complaint
because plaintiff is proceeding pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
IV. Discussion
Here, even with a generous reading, the amended complaint does not survive screening
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Title VI of the Civil Rights Act provides that no person shall, “on
the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity” that is federally
funded. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. However, a claim under Title VI requires factual allegations
sufficient to support a plausible claim that the defendants acted with discriminatory intent. See
Doe v. Brown Univ., 43 F.4th 195, 208 (1st Cir. 2022).
Here, the allegations of the amended complaint are rife with deficiencies. The allegations
of discrimination are entirely conclusory; there are no facts sufficient to support a plausible claim
that plaintiff was actually rejected by Harvard because of his race or national origin. There are
no remotely plausible claims against the United States. Similarly, the amended complaint fails to
plead plausible facts to support any of the state-law claims. Furthermore, and at a minimum, the
limitations period for most of his claims is three years, and six years as to the purported contract
claims. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, §§ 2, 2A, 5B. The alleged injury should have been
obvious to plaintiff, and sufficient to put him on inquiry notice, by 2009 or 2014 at the latest, but
this lawsuit was not filed until 2024.
In light of the high degree of implausibility of his claims, and his apparently extensive
experience with civil litigation, the Court sees no reason to give plaintiff an opportunity to file a
second amended complaint to cure the many deficiencies.1 The action will accordingly be
1 Plaintiff has been described as “a serial litigant who has filed a series of sprawling complaints in courts
across the nation.” Patel v United States, No. 23cv21830 (EP)(MAH), 2023 WL 8447935, at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 6,
2023) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
dismissed.
Plaintiff’s motions for leave to file electronically pro se and for electronic notice will be
denied as moot.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above,
1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is ALLOWED.
2. This matter is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
3. Plaintiff’s motions for electronic notice and for leave to file electronically pro se
are DENIED as moot.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: April 24, 2024