Friedmann v. Pacific Lutheran University

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 MICHAEL FRIEDMANN, CASE NO. 3:25-CV-5080-DGE 11 Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 PACIFIC LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY, Noting Date: March 11, 2025 13 et al., 14 Defendant.

15 Plaintiff Michael Friedmann has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis 16 (“IFP”) in the above-entitled action. Dkt. 1. After careful consideration of the application, the 17 governing law and the balance of the record, the Court RECOMMENDS as follows: 18 (1) Because Plaintiff does not appear to have funds available to afford the $405.00 19 filing fee, Plaintiff financially qualifies for IFP status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915(a)(1). Therefore, the Court recommends granting Plaintiff’s IFP application. 21 (2) The Court recognizes Plaintiff’s Complaint is not a model of clarity, but finds, at 22 this early stage, Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed in this action against 23 Defendant Pacific Lutheran University (“PLU”). The Court notes that it is 24 1 possible Plaintiff has not stated a federal claim. For example, Plaintiff alleges 2 First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims against PLU, which would 3 proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but fails to show PLU acted under color of state 4 law. See Massey v. Biola Univ., Inc., 2022 WL 671021, at *1 (9th Cir. Mar. 7,

5 2022) (finding no First Amendment or due process claims where the plaintiff 6 failed to show Biola University was acting under color of state law): Heineke v. 7 Santa Clara Univ., 965 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2020) (reasoning that receipt of 8 government funds “is insufficient to convert a private university into a state 9 actor.”). However, there is limited legal authority about whether Plaintiff may 10 have stated a Title IX claim because he was allegedly discriminated against based 11 on his use (or lack thereof) of pronouns. Therefore, at this time, the Court finds 12 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is sufficient enough to warrant granting his 13 application to proceed IFP. 14 Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and

15 served upon all parties to this suit not later than fourteen (14) days from the date on which this 16 Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time may 17 affect your right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge’s 18 motions calendar fourteen (14) days from the date they are filed. Responses to objections may 19 be filed by the day before the noting date. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be 20 ready for consideration by the District Judge on March 11, 2025. 21 Dated this 24th day of February, 2025. 22 A 23 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 24