Fosu v. University of Rhode Island

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Louis Kwame Fosu
v. 	Case No. 21-cv-279-SJM-AKJ
University of Rhode Island
Board of Trustees, et al.
O R D E R
Louis Kwame Fosu brings claims against his former employer,
the University of Rhode Island, its Board of Trustees, and
officials at the University of Rhode Island, alleging violations
of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and claims under
Rhode Island law. 	Doc. no. 36. 	Fosu’s legal counsel withdrew
from representation in late 2023. 	Since then Fosu has
represented himself. In March of 2024, Fosu moved to disqualify
the presiding judge and filed a judicial conduct complaint,
which caused the court to stay the case for several months.
When the stay was lifted, Fosu moved for leave to withdraw
from the case and to have the case transferred to the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia. 	Doc. no.
67. 	In response, defendants moved to dismiss the case with
prejudice. 	Doc. no. 68. 	Fosu again moved for the presiding
judge to recuse from the case, which motion was granted, and the
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 84 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
case was reassigned.1 	Following the recusal of all other judges
in the District of Rhode Island, the case was assigned to this
judge, sitting in the District of Rhode Island by designation.
Doc. nos. 78, 79, & 80.
After reassignment, Fosu filed a “motion to reconsider and
vacate order transferring venue to the District of New
Hampshire” and to have the case transferred to the District of
Columbia instead. 	Doc. no. 81. Defendants filed a response to
that motion. 	Doc. no. 82. Defendants also move for expedited
consideration of the pending motions. Doc. no. 83.
I. Motion to Vacate Transfer and Venue
In support of his motion to vacate transfer of the case to
the District of New Hampshire, Fosu argues that the “transfer to
New Hampshire was unsupported by statutory authority, factually
unrelated to any party or event, and appears retaliatory in
light of Plaintiff’s successful motion for recusal of Chief
Judge John J. McConnell.” 	Doc. no. 81, at 2. 	Fosu states that
if this court denies his motion to vacate transfer, he will file
a petition for a writ of mandamus in the First Circuit Court of
1 The presiding judge stated that Fosu continued to make
false and incendiary statements about him and that “[a]fter
years of false accusations from Mr. Fosu, the Court has finally
reached its limit in its ability to be fair and impartial to Mr.
Fosu in this case.” Doc. no. 72.
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 84 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Appeals. 	He argues that the case should be transferred to the
District of Columbia based on his belief that there is prejudice
against him in the District of Rhode Island because of his race
and his political views.
Fosu is mistaken about the procedural posture of his case.
It was not “transferred” to the District of New Hampshire.
Instead, because the judges in the District of Rhode Island have
recused, the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge who is
sitting by designation, for purposes of this case, in the
District of Rhode Island. 	The case remains in the District of
Rhode Island.
As plaintiff, Fosu chose to file the case in the District
of Rhode Island. 	Jurisdiction and venue are proper. 	He now
seeks to transfer the case to the District of Columbia, both in
his motion to vacate and in a separate motion for change of
venue (doc. no. 70). 	But he provides no cognizable grounds
warranting a transfer of the case to the District of Columbia,
and, in particular, he has not shown a necessary predicate--that
the case could have been brought in the District of Columbia.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1404; McKinney v. Wing, No. 25-cv-355, 2025 WL
3041801, at *2 (D. Me. Oct. 31, 2025). 	Therefore, his requests
for transfer or a change of venue to the District of Columbia
are denied.
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 84 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
II. Fosu’s Motion to Withdraw and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Fosu moves to withdraw his appearance in this case because
he believes that he cannot receive fair consideration of his
claims, and due to alleged fraud on the court, perjury, and
conspiracy. 	He contends that “only a special prosecutor from
the U.S. Department of Justice or a highly seasoned litigator
possesses the requisite expertise to navigate these challenges
and confront the entrenched misconduct.” Doc. no. 67, at 2. 	The
court understands that, by withdrawing from the case, Fosu
intends to voluntarily dismiss his claims under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) in order to proceed elsewhere or to
bring a complaint against defendants in the Department of
Justice.
Rule 41(a)(2) provides that if the circumstances in Rule
41(a)(1) do not apply, which they do not here, “an action may be
dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on
terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(2). 	“The rule allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss
his own case as long as no other party will be prejudiced [and]
the court is responsible for ensuring that such prejudice will
not occur.” 	Cason v. P.R. Elec. Power Auth., 770 F.3d 971, 976
(1st Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). 	It is the
defendant’s burden, however, to demonstrate that “it would
suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result . . . as opposed
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 84 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
to facing the mere prospect of a second lawsuit.” 	Id.
Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) generally is without prejudice,
absent reasons to dismiss claims with prejudice. 	Id.
Defendants do not oppose dismissing Fosu’s claims, but they
argue that the dismissal should be with prejudice, under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), because of Fosu’s “vexatious
misbehavior” that has delayed progress of the case. 	Doc. no.
68, at 3. 	Defendants cite Fosu’s attacks on the presiding
judge, defendants, and defendants’ counsel, as well as his
failure to appear at the scheduled status conference to restart
the case following the stay imposed when Fosu filed a judicial
conduct complaint against the presiding judge. 	Instead of
attending the status conference, Fosu moved to withdraw from the
case. Doc. no. 67.
The court acknowledges that the procedural history in this
case, after Fosu’s counsel withdrew from representation in
October and November of 2023, includes conduct by Fosu that is
inconsistent with expected practice but, while dismissal with
prejudice might well be supportable under Rule 41(b), given his
pro se status and the availability of effective control measures
should this case be refiled, the court will grant Fosu’s motion
to withdraw under Rule 41(a)(2) and dismiss the case without
prejudice. 	Should the case be refiled in this district, it will
remain with me, sitting by designation.
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 84 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Conclusion
For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion to withdraw (doc. no.
67) is granted to the extent that the claims are dismissed
without prejudice, but any other relief that may be sought in
that motion is denied. 	Should this case, or a substantially
similar case be refiled in this district, it will remain with me
as a related case.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice (doc. no. 68)
is denied.
Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider transfer (doc. no. 81) is
denied. Plaintiff’s motion for a change of venue (doc. no. 70)
is denied. Defendants’ motion to expedite (doc. no. 83) is
denied as moot.
The clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly and
close the case.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
Sitting by Designation
January 27, 2026
cc: 	Louis Kwame Fosu, pro se
Counsel of Record
Case 1:21-cv-00279-SJM-AKJ Document 84 Filed 01/27/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>