Harris v. Mills
- Decided
- July 9, 2009
- Docket
- Docket 07-2283-cv
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 5,185 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- concluding that regardless of the holdings of Twombly and Iqbal that the court is obligated to liberally interpret pro se complaints — Gokhberg v. 200 Corbin Owners Corp. (2025)
- holding that Title II ADA suits for prospective injunctive relief may proceed against individual officers in their official capacities — (untitled) (2025)
- holding that individuals can only be sued under the ADA in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief — Bell v. Family Dollar Jane Doe (2023)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
SACK, Circuit Judge:
Monroe S. Harris appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Victor Marrero, Judge).
Harris was formerly licensed by the state of New York as a doctor of osteopathic medicine; his medical license was revoked because he was found to have committed fraud and engaged in improper medical practices. At issue is the New York State Education Department’s denial of Harris’s petition to reinstate his license. Harris brought this action pro se pursuant to, inter alia, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claims to have been illegally denied a reasonable accommodation for his cognitive disabilities and unconstitutionally deprived of due process of law.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (2009)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.