Jermain Lamar Bankston v. Academy of Art University, et al.

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 6 — 7 JERMAIN LAMAR BANKSTON, Case No. 25-cv-04988-JST 8 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING SAC v. — 9 — Re: ECF No. 28 10 ACADEMY OF ART UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. — 11 — — 12 — 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Jermain Lamar Bankston’s second amended complaint 14 (“SAC”). ECF No. 28. Because Bankston proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court will conduct the 15 review required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2) and dismisses the complaint without leave to 16 amend. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On June 12, 2025, Bankston filed a complaint against Academy of Art University and its 19 instructor Brandie Grogan. ECF No. 1. He asserted claims for: (1) violations of the Americans 20 with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq; (2) violations of 29 U.S.C. § 794 ; (3) 21 violations of 38 U.S.C. § 3679 (c) and § 3697A; (4) violations of 20 U.S.C. § 7909 ; and (4) breach 22 of contract. Id. Also on June 12, 2025, Bankston moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 23 ECF No. 3. On June 26, 2025, Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim granted Bankston’s motion to proceed 24 in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint with leave to amend after conducting the review 25 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). ECF No. 6. 26 Bankston filed an amended complaint on July 22, 2025. ECF No. 11. On November 12, 27 2025, this Court screened and dismissed the amended complaint under Section 1915(e)(2). ECF 1 (1) discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation in violation of the Americans with 2 Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq; (2) violations of Section 504 of the 3 Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 ; (3) violations of 28 C.F.R. § 36.302 (a); and (4) breach of 4 contract. ECF No. 28 at 3–7. 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 Section 1915(e)(2) requires the Court to screen in forma pauperis proceedings to 7 determine if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be 8 granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 9 § 1915(e)(2). The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 10 which relief can be granted under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 11 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 , 12 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 , 1127–31 (9th Cir. 2000)). If the Court 13 determines that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” it must dismiss 14 the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th 15 Cir. 1998). 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 17 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not necessary; the 18 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon 19 which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (internal quotations and citation 20 omitted). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it “demands more than an 21 unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 , 22 677–78 (2009). A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the 23 elements of a cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not 24 suffice. Id. 25 III. DISCUSSION 26 For the purpose of screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2), the Court “accept[s] all factual 27 allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the pleadings in the light most favorable to the 1 Bankston alleges that Defendants denied him access to a silkscreen lab, which “is a 2 required accommodation that allows a disabled individual to participate equally in a program.” 3 ECF No. 28 at 3. He explains that “[b]ecause of [his] disability, [he] do[es] not have the physical 4 ability, resources, or safe environment to perform silkscreen work at home.” Id. Yet his own 5 explanation undercuts his claim that his inability to perform silkscreen work at home is related to 6 his disability. Rather, he alleges that such work requires “proper ventilation, industrial equipment, 7 chemical safety, and supervision inside a controlled facility.” Id. He has not alleged that or 8 explained how his disability interacts with silkscreen work such that access to the lab is necessary 9 to put him on equal footing with non-disabled students. 10 In the SAC, Bankston also alleges that (1) he was initially barred from the silkscreen room 11 because he hadn’t paid a fee, although he was later allowed to use it without paying the fees; (2) 12 there were delays in instructors grading his work; (3) he received persistently poor grades; and (4) 13 he was denied admission to the school’s MFA program based on his poor grades. ECF No. 28 at 14 4–6. Bankston does not clearly allege that any of these actions were discriminatory in nature or 15 otherwise explain why any of these actions constituted a violation of the law. Moreover, he fails 16 to cure deficiencies identified in the last two screening orders. 17 In Judge Kim’s order screening the original complaint, she found that Bankston’s 18 “Complaint does not allege any facts that indicate he was charged a lab fee because of his status as 19 a person with a disability.” ECF No. 6 at 2. She also found that “the exhibits attached to the 20 Complaint undercut Plaintiff’s allegations” by providing an explanation for Bankston’s poor grade 21 and his being charged a lab fee. Id. 22 This Court subsequently held that the amended complaint did not resolve the problems 23 identified by Judge Kim. ECF No. 27 at 3. His amended complaint “fail[ed] to identify any facts 24 that indicated that he was charged a lab fee or given a low grade because of his status as a person 25 with a disability.” Id. And in exhibits attached to Bankston’s amended complaint, Defendants 26 informed Bankston “that his low grade was the result of ‘lack of color variety,’ and that his work 27 would not be graded ‘until you pay the lab fee.’” Id. (quoting ECF No. 11). 1 original complaint. He has alleged no facts suggesting that any of the challenged actions were 2 || discriminatory. Rather, the documents attached to Bankston’s complaint show that he was denied 3 access to the silkscreen lab because online students are not allowed to use the lab without prior 4 approval, supervision, and payment of a fee, ECF No. 28 at 10, 13, 16, that his work was graded 5 promptly, id. at 18 , and that he received poor grades because he persistently failed to follow 6 instructions, id. at 17 . 7 CONCLUSION 8 Bankston has now had two opportunities to address the deficiencies in his complaint and 9 || has failed to do so. Performing the required screening under Section 1915(e)(2), the Court 10 therefore dismisses his claims with prejudice. See Moody vy. City of Hayward, 914 F.2d 263 (9th 11 Cir. 1990) (“Because [the plaintiff] has been given ample opportunities to amend his complaint 12 and has failed to do so, the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint under [Section 5 13 1915].”). No further amendments shall be allowed. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the 14 || file. IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: December 15, 2025 . M JON S. a) 18 nited States District Judge — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —