Sanchez v. Brown University et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:23-cv-00343-JJM-PAS Document56- Filed 01/09/24 Page 1 of 7 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

JARED PIERCE SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,

Vv.
C.A. No. 23°343-JJM-PAS

BROWN UNIVERSITY; CARE NEW

ENGLAND HEALTH SYSTEM; and

LIFESPAN CORPORATION,
Defendants.

ORDER

The Court entered judgment, dismissing Plaintiff Jared Pierce Sanchez’s
Complaint against Defendants Brown University, Care New England Health System,
and Lifespan Corporation, after deciding several dispositive motions and denying
Mr. Sanchez’s motion to amend his Complaint. ECF No. 46. He appealed the Court’s
Orders to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.! While that appeal was pending, he
filed four motions before this Court: Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 47); Motion for
Recusal (ECF No. 48); Motion to Amend/Correct Defendant Name to Care New

England Health System (ECF No. 52); and Motion for Leave to File Document Sur-

Reply (ECF No. 58).

1 Because Mr. Sanchez had an appeal pending in the First Circuit, this Court
would normally not have jurisdiction to decide these motions. Anticipating this issue,
the First Circuit entered an Order finding that “[plursuant to Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(4)(B)Gi), the notice of appeal does not become effective until the district court
disposes of the post judgment motion [Motion to Vacate, ECF No. 47].” ECF No. 51.

Case 1:23-cv-00343-JJM-PAS Document56- Filed 01/09/24 Page 2 of 7 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

The Court can easily dispatch the latter two motions. The Court GRANTS
Mr. Sanchez’s Motion to Correct the name of the Defendant from “Care New England
Health Systems” to “Care New England Health System.” ECF No. 52. The Court
GRANTS the Motion to File the Sur-Reply, which is actually a Reply to the
Opposition. ECF No. 55. The Court has considered the Reply in deciding the Motions
to Vacate and Recuse. Now, the Court moves on to the meatier motions.

1. MOTION TO VACATE

Mr. Sanchez asks this Court to vacate: (1) its two Orders dismissing his claims
against Defendants Lifespan, Brown University, and Care New England; and (2) its
Order denying his Motion to Amend the Complaint. ECF Nos. 16, 45. After reviewing
the briefing and record in this case, the Court finds that Mr. Sanchez has raised no
grounds for the Court to vacate these Orders.

First, as to the dismissal of Mr. Sanchez’s claims against the three Defendants,
the Court correctly held that his Complaint did not state a claim upon which relief
could be granted, and nothing he has put forth in his Motion to Vacate changes that
opinion. Simply put, Mr. Sanchez has pleaded causes of action that do not apply to
his situation. Because he is a student at Brown University and not in any of the
Defendants’ employ, Title VII does not supply any protection or relief for him. Second,
he alleges religious discrimination under Title VI, but Title VI does not cover
discrimination based on religion. Finally, he asserts a First Amendment claim, but

the First Amendment is limited to government action, and no matter how he

Case 1:23-cv-00343-JJM-PAS Document56- Filed 01/09/24 Page 3 of 7 PagelD #:
<pagelD>
advocates that Defendants are “government:like,” no defendant is a government actor
subject to the First Amendment.

Second, as to his Motion to Amend his Complaint, the Court correctly ruled
that the amendment would be futile because all the legal deficiencies in his original
Complaint continued in his proposed Amended Complaint. Mr. Sanchez argues that
his proposed amendment focused on the “complex interrelations between Brown
University, Care New England Health System, and Lifespan Corporation” but that
is irrelevant and does not alleviate the deficiencies in the original Complaint—the
Defendants are not his employer and are not government actors as federal law
contemplates.

Because the Court finds that its initial decisions to dismiss Mr. Sanchez’s case
as pleaded, and to deny his Motion to Amend the Complaint because the amendment
did not cure any of those fatal flaws, were correct, the Court DENIES Mr. Sanchez’s
Motion to Vacate. ECF No. 47.

2. MOTION FOR RECUSAL

Because the Court ruled against him, Mr. Sanchez now asks the Court to
recuse itself from further consideration of his case. ECF No. 48. He argues that the
district judge made “judicial missteps,” had conflicts of interest and judicial
precedent, took “rapid judicial action,” and unfairly denied his right to amend his
Complaint. The Court will respond briefly to each allegation but finds that
Mr. Sanchez has leveled no valid reason for the Court to recuse itself, and the Court

independently decides that no basis exists for recusal.

Case 1:23-cv-00343-JJM-PAS Document56- Filed 01/09/24 Page 4 of 7 PagelD #:
<pagelD>
e Mr. Sanchez complains that the Court dismissed Lifespan before they were
“properly served.”2 Lifespan filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) on September 7,
2023. Mr. Sanchez opposed the motion the next day (never raising the issue that
Lifespan had alleged not been “properly served”), and Lifespan filed its Reply on
September 14, 2023. The Court granted Mr. Sanchez’s Motion to file a Sur-Reply.
The Court entered its Order dismissing Lifespan for failure to state a claim on
October 4, 2023, after the motion had been fully briefed and the Court reviewed all
the filings. ECF No. 16. It is unclear from Mr. Sanchez’s papers why this fact pattern
would require the district judge to recuse, or why this timeline “raises questions about
the fairness and impartiality of the judicial process” under the Court’s oversight.
ECF No. 48 at 4.
e Mr. Sanchez next alleges a “multi-faceted potential conflict of interest,”
primarily because (1) the district judge has served on the Board of Directors of
Crossroads RI3, the largest provider of services to those experiencing homelessness

in Rhode Island, and (2) he graduated from Brown University 48 years ago. Jd.

2 This case was originally assigned to another judge in this Court. He entered
an Order of Recusal (ECF No. 11) on September 20, 2023, (when most of the briefing
on the motion was completed) at which time the current district judge was randomly
assigned the case.

3 Mr. Sanchez incorrectly states that the district judge’s involvement in
Crossroads was “undisclosed.” ECF No. 48 at 5. Every year since the district judge
has been on the bench, he has filed his Financial Disclosure Report listing his
membership on the Board and his role at Crossroads.

Case 1:23-cv-00343-JJM-PAS Document56- Filed 01/09/24 Page 5 of 7 PagelD #:
<pagelD>
o Mr. Sanchez claims there is a “substantial overlap with influential
members [of the Crossroads Board] directly involved in this case.”4 Jd. Crossroads is
a 501 (c)(3) independent nonprofit, unaffiliated with any of the Defendants in this
case. Mr. Sanchez cites to the fact that certain individuals also serve on the Board:
Nicole E. Alexander-Scott, Clinical Professor at Brown University; Dr. Margaret M.
Van Bree, former president of Rhode Island Hospital and Hasbro Children’s Hospital;
and M. Teresa Paiva-Weed, Esq, president of the Hospital Association of Rhode
Island. /d, at 5. First, each of these people serves on the Board of Crossroads in their
individual, not in their professional capacities. There is no affiliation between
Crossroads and any of these entities. Second, nothing about this matter, or any
matter involving any of the Defendants, has ever come before the Board of Directors
of Crossroads. Third, Dr. Alexander-Scott left the Department of Health in January
2022, Dr. Van Bree left R.I. Hospital years before the allegations in the Complaint,
and Ms. Paiva-Weed, is the executive director of a trade association. Nothing about
the district court judge’s membership on the Board of Directors of Crossroads with
these individuals creates any conflict of interest and is not a cause for recusal.
o The district judge graduated from Brown University over 48 years ago.
(Class of 1980). He has had no official contact or involvement with Brown since that
time. The district judge has presided over twenty-five cases with Brown as a party,

and never has anyone alleged a conflict exists because the district judge is an alum.

4 This statement in not true. Neither Crossroads nor anyone on the Board is
directly involved in this case.

Case 1:23-cv-00343-JJM-PAS Document56- Filed 01/09/24 Page 6 of 7 PagelD #:
<pagelD>
There is nothing about the simple fact that the district judge graduated from a
university that creates a conflict requiring recusal.

e Mr. Sanchez also seeks recusal based on an allegation of “judicial
precedent” in which he states: “Judge McConnell's judicial record, as observed in
Rhode Island’s FY 2022 Budget Enacted Section VI Special Reports (Pp. 813), shows
a pattern of decisive action in cases involving complex institutional interrelations.”
Id. It is unclear what “decisive action” Mr. Sanchez objects to, but the Court’s
decisions in that unrelated case speak for themselves and do not provide a
justification for demanding recusal.

e Mr. Sanchez alleges that the Court should recuse because the Defendants
engaged in inappropriate communication with the Judge’s Case Manager. First, he
alleges that communication between defense counsel and the judge’s case manager
were ex parte. Id. at'7. Again, this is not true; Mr. Sanchez was copied on all
administrative emails from and to the Judge’s Case Manager. Second, the
communication only involved administrative matters.

e Finally, Mr. Sanchez alleges that “swift judicial action on two occasions” is
somehow evidence of the judge’s bias. He does not point out that the Court issued its
Order after reviewing all the fully briefed issues. An efficiently issued and prompt
order is not evidence of bias.

The Court has considered all of Mr. Sanchez’s reasoning in favor of recusal and

finds that recusal is not warranted. The Court DENIES Mr. Sanchez’s Motion to

Recuse. ECF No. 48.

Case 1:23-cv-00343-JJM-PAS Document56- Filed 01/09/24 Page 7 of 7 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Mr. Sanchez’s Motion to Vacate. ECF No. 47. The Court
DENIES Mr. Sanchez’s Motion to Recuse. ECF No. 48. The Court GRANTS

Mr. Sanchez’s Motion to Correct. ECF No. 52. The Court GRANTS the Motion to

File the Sur-Reply. ECF No. 55.

IT IS solorpfren, Lyf 1

f fy

V j
[ ; an) / ff j A

John J. McConnell, Jr.
Chief Judge
United States District Court

January 9, 2024