Disability Accommodations "That Fundamentally Change Court Proceedings, Could Alter the Court's Substantive Decisions," …

"or affect any other parties' due process rights ... are not reasonable."

From Judge Samantha D. Elliott (D.N.H.) yesterday in Doe v. Univ. Sys. of N.H.:

Pro se plaintiff John Doe brings suit against the University System of New Hampshire Board of Trustees and several individuals, identified and unidentified, arising out of a "pattern of policy retaliations contrary to contractual obligations" beginning in 2023. The plaintiff alleges few specific facts in what he describes as his "emergency skeleton complaint" that was "executed under acute medical distress to freeze vital deadlines," but he invokes the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. He also asserts that the court has "supplemental jurisdiction over all related state law breach of contract and equitable claims." …

Viewed generously, the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction asks the court to do the following to accommodate certain alleged disabilities: 1) preserve all of his claims for the purposes of the applicable statutes of limitations; 2) waive all deadlines established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's Local Rules; 3) permit the plaintiff to file documents expanding on his claims and seeking additional court intervention (protective orders, comprehensive courtroom and mediation accommodations, the appointment of a special master to oversee discovery, etc.) on a rolling basis; 4) defer issuing summonses to the defendants; and 5) maintain his pleadings under seal.

The court notes at the outset that neither Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act nor Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act applies to federal courts. Nonetheless, the court is committed to maintaining access to the court for all litigants and endeavors to grant reasonable requests for accommodations. Any accommodations that fundamentally change court proceedings, could alter the court's substantive decisions, or affect any other parties' due process rights, however, are not reasonable….

The court will not, at this time, decide whether the plaintiff's "skeleton" complaint is sufficient to state any claim against any defendant. Nor will the court decide whether any allegations, claims, or defendants named in an amended complaint, if any, will relate back to the date on which the plaintiff filed his initial complaint. Those decisions require the court to apply a number of legal standards to the specific facts and the procedural posture presented by an amended complaint. The court simply cannot determine, one way or the other, whether any potential amended claims will be deemed timely. Such an order on the current record before the court may be an impermissible advisory opinion.

Also, due process requires the court to provide the defendants with an opportunity to appear and make their own arguments regarding timeliness before deciding those issues in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's request that the court preserve, at this time, his potential future claims for the purposes of applicable statutes of limitations is denied without prejudice to his ability to argue that any future claims are timely.

In all cases, the court will consider reasonable requests to extend deadlines. It may be that the plaintiff's alleged medical issues, or other facts, justify extensions of certain deadlines in this case.

"While pro se complaints and filings are construed liberally, even pro se litigants are bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." The court will not grant a blanket extension of all deadlines and will not tie the length of any potential extension to the time allotted for the plaintiff to complete schoolwork, as argued, because the considerations controlling the entitlement to or length of any extension in the educational setting are not the same as those in the litigation setting. Absent specific relief from the court, the plaintiff shall be bound by the deadlines and other provisions set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court's Local Rules.

Because the plaintiff is representing himself and is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court will conduct preliminary review of his filings and determine whether it should dismiss his case or any claim because, among other reasons, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, he fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or a defendant is immune. The court will not issue any summons until it finishes preliminary review.

To the extent that the plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint prior to that review, the court is inclined to allow him to do so. Thus, he will have time to add to his allegations and claims prior to the issuance of any summons. Again, the court cannot now determine whether any amendments will relate back to his original filing. But the court will not begin to conduct preliminary review until November 16, 2026. On that date, the court will begin its preliminary review of the complaint then in effect….

For these reasons, the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction … is granted to the extent that it seeks permission to file an amended complaint and delay the issuance of any summons until the court finishes preliminary review of that amended complaint. The plaintiff shall file the amended complaint, which shall comply with the directions in this order, on or before November 16, 2026. The motion for a preliminary injunction is otherwise denied….