Description: Lawsuit seeking to compel a community college president to require distribution of plaintiff's position paper referring to political movements to reduce fossil fuel use as "malicious hoax."
-
Roemer v. Williams
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/02/2020 Order Download Dismissal affirmed. Second Circuit Agreed Brooklyn Man Had No Standing for Constitutional Claims Based on Community College’s Refusal to Distribute Paper on Climate Change “Hoax”. In an unpublished summary order, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a Brooklyn man, proceeding pro se, who alleged that the president of a community college violated the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by failing to require the distribution of the plaintiff’s position paper explaining “why the political movement to reduce the use of fossil fuels is a malicious hoax” to students taking a climatology course. The Second Circuit agreed with the district court that the plaintiff lacked standing because he failed to allege an injury in fact since he “never explained why he had any legal right to have the document distributed.” -
Roemer v. Williams
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 01/08/2020 Memorandum Download Complaint dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal Court Dismissed “Frivolous” First Amendment Claims by Man Who Sought Distribution of Position Paper Referring to Climate Change as “Malicious Hoax”. The federal district court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Brooklyn man, proceeding pro se, who alleged that the president of a community college violated the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by failing to require the distribution of the plaintiff’s position paper explaining “why the political movement to reduce the use of fossil fuels is a malicious hoax” to students taking a climatology course. The court found that the plaintiff, who did not allege any legally cognizable relationship with the community college, had failed to allege Article III standing. The court also found that the plaintiff’s claim was “frivolous because there is no legal theory on which he can rely.”