1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SAMI ALBRA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 17-1397 (JEB)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al. , Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Sami Albra, who describes himself as disabled, belie ves that the State of Nevada’s Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Services and Pima Medical College have discriminated against him on the basis of such unspecified disa bility. Instead of suing those entities, however, he has brought this action under the Adminis trative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of Education, its Office of Civil Rights, and a n OCR regional director for failing to sufficiently investigat e the discriminatory conduct. Now moving to dismiss, Defendants point out that no APA suit can succeed where Albra c ould obtain relief by suing the Nevada entities directly. Agr eeing, the Court will dismiss the case. I. Background Although the Court must assume at th is stage that the facts set forth in the Complaint are true, parsing such facts is no eas y matter. While the context is opaque, Albra alleges that the State of Nevada’s Vocational Re habilitation (VR) Services discr iminated against him concerning disability benefits. See Compl . at 3-4. In addition, Pima Med ical College also engaged in disability discrimination whe n it denied him admission. Id. at 4-5. At some point, Albra filed a2 complaint with the Seattle OCR against Nevada’s Office of VR Se rvices. Id. at 2. “OCR Seattle rejected this complaint . . . s tating that OCR does not handle disability discrimination charges against a State’s Vocational Re habilitation Services.” Id. Pl aintiff believes that this is not actually the policy. Id. In fact , after he appealed, OCR Seat tle informed Albra that it “does handle discrimination cases again st State VR agencies” and woul d investigate. Id. at 3. Albra also “submitted a different and unrel ated complaint for disabil ity discrimination to OCR Seattle against Pima.” Id. at 4. The Cour t infers from his causes of action set out below that the Department of Education did not sat isfactorily resolve his comp laints. After explaining that both the Rehabilitation Act and the Ameri cans with Disabilities Act prohibit discrimination by state entities and private colleges that receive fed eral funding, id. at 10-11, Plaintiff sets out his four counts, all under the APA. The first asserts that OCR “unlawfully withheld action again st the State of Nevada” and Pi ma. Id. at 11-12. The second alleges that OCR acted arbitrar ily and capriciously in not inve stigating those en tities. Id. at 12. The third makes out a due-process claim against the Education D epartment for the same reason, id. at 13, and the fourth decries OCR’s failure to follow its C ase Processing Manual in pursuing the discriminating bodies. Id. at 13-14. Defendants now move to dismiss. II. Legal Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dismi ssal of an action where a complaint fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be gran ted.” When the sufficiency of a complaint is challenged under Ru le 12(b)(6), the factual allega tions presented in it must be presumed true and should be liber ally construed in plaintiff’s favor. See Leatherman v. Tarrant Cty. Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164 (1993). Although “detailed factual allegations” are not n ecessary to withstand a Rule 12(b )(6) motion, Bell Atl. Corp. v.3 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), “a complaint must contain su fficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation o mitted). A plaintiff must put forth “factual content that allows the court to draw the re asonable inference that the defe ndant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Though a plaintiff may survive a 12(b)(6) motio n even if “recovery is very remote and unlikely,” Twombly, 550 U.S. a t 556 (citing Scheuer, 416 U. S. at 236), the facts alleged in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. Where the action is brought by a pro se plaintiff, the Court must cons true her filings liberally and hold the complaint to “less stringe nt standards than formal ple adings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); see also Schnitz ler v. United States, 761 F.3d 33, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2014). III. Analysis Defendants’ initial argument here boils down to the question: Why are you suing us? In other words, as Plaintiff is c omplaining about discrimination b y Nevada’s VR Services and Pima, what is his beef with the Department of Education? Garbe d in more appropriate legal dress, Defendants’ position is that the APA does not apply when a plaintiff has an alternative remedy available. They are correct. Under APA § 704, only “final agenc y action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court [is] subject to judici al review.” As both Nevada’s Department of Employment, Rehabilitation, and Training (NDETR) and Pima receive federal f unds, see Mot., Exh. B (OCR Letter to Plaintiff, March 29, 2017) at 2; id., Exh. E (OCR Let ter to Plaintiff, April 27, 2017) at 2, they are subject to the feder al Rehabilitation Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (prohibiting discrimination against “qualified i ndividual with a disability” by “any program or activity4 receiving Federal financial assistance”). As a result, Albra c an sue these entities directly for disability discrimination under that Act. Given that he has th at alternative remedy, he does not have a cause of action under th e APA. See Perry Capital LLC v Mnuchin, 864 F.3d 591, 620-21 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (explaining that issue goes to legitimacy of c ause of action, not sovereign immunity). Courts in this district have so held on repeated occasions. I n West v. Spellings, 480 F. Supp. 2d 213 (D.D.C. 2007), for examp le, the plaintiff sued the Department of Education for its failure to satisfactorily investig ate a university he believed had discriminated against him. Among other counts, he brought APA c laims, which the Court dism issed because he could directly sue the institution, meaning another adequate remedy e xisted. Id. at 217; see also Cottrell v. Vilsack, 915 F. Supp. 2d 81, 90 n.9 (D.D.C. 2013). In fact, just two months ago, Chief Judge Howell handled a s uit brought by one “Adem Albra,” the format and content of whose pleadings look remarkably s imilar to Sami Albra’s here. See Albra v. Bd. of Trustees of Miami Dade College, 2018 WL 910719 (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2018). Ade m Albra also sued the Department of Education and other entities in Florida regarding purported disability discrimination. In dismissing the f ederal entities, the court held that “the plaintiff has other adequate remedies available to him.” Id. at *5. The same result obtains here . If Albra wants relief, he shoul d sue the Nevada entities he claims discriminated against him. Proceeding under the APA aga inst the federal Defendants is not the proper route.5 IV. Conclusion As set forth above, the Court wi ll grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. A contemporaneous Order will issue this day.
/s/ James E. Boasberg JAMES E. BOASBERG United States District Judge

Date: April 16, 2018