Nguyen v. Milliken

2 Citing cases

  1. Sutton v. Stony Brook Univ.

    18-CV-7434(JS)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2020)   Cited 10 times

    "To state a substantive due process claim, a plaintiff must establish that a fundamental liberty or property interest 'was infringed in an arbitrary or irrational manner that shocks the conscience.'" Nguyen v. Milliken, No. 15-CV-0587, 2015 WL 4925884, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2015) (quoting Marino, 18 F. Supp. 3d at 338). The Second Circuit has observed that "[t]he right to public education is not fundamental" and "there is no substantive due process right to public education."

  2. Nguyen v. Milliken

    15-CV-0587 (MKB) (E.D.N.Y. May. 20, 2016)   Cited 4 times

    (Compl. 1-2.) By Memorandum and Order dated April 21, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs' applications to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915, and dismissed the Complaint as to Mr. Nguyen for lack of standing and as to Ms. Nguyen for failure to state a claim (the "April 21, 2015 Decision"). Nguyen v. Milliken, 104 F. Supp. 3d 224, 232 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) ("Nguyen I"). Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on July 7, 2015, adding new Defendants and asserting claims for breach of contract and for violations of the United States Criminal Code, the Law of Nations and Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Am. Compl. 1-4, Docket Entry No. 12.) By Memorandum and Order dated August 18, 2015, the Court held that Plaintiffs failed to cure the deficiencies in the Complaint and dismissed the Amended Complaint (the "August 18, 2015 Decision"). Nguyen v. Milliken, No. 15-CV-0587, 2015 WL 4925884, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2015) ("Nguyen II"). On September 14, 2015, Plaintiffs moved to vacate the judgment entered on August 18, 2015 and, in effect, seek reconsideration of the Court's August 18, 2015 Decision. (Pls. Mot. to Vacate J. ("Pls. Mot."), Docket Entry No. 15) For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion. I. Background