Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06680/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06680-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EON WALDEN, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

JANE MOFFETT, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-04-6680 REC/DLB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE

STATEMENT OR TO DISMISS AND

DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

WITHIN 30 DAYS OF FILING

DATE OF ORDER

By Order filed on September 7, 2005, the court ordered

plaintiffs to submit a more definite statement with regard to

Claim Eight in the First Amended Complaint by way of amendment in

the Second Amended Complaint. In so ordering, the court ruled in

pertinent part:

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed

to allege which provision of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, et seq., was

violated. Defendants also argue that

Plaintiffs' broad allegation that 'defendants

hold African-American students and parents

and other students and parents of color

accountable to higher standards than those

set forth in District policies and

Case 1:04-cv-06680-LJO-DLB Document 29 Filed 01/03/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

procedures,' and hold Anglo-American students

and parents to less stringent standards, is

insufficient to state a claim.

There is a possibility, on the facts alleged,

that Plaintiffs may be able to state a

legally cognizable claim under the Civil

Rights Act. This makes dismissal with

prejudice inappropriate. However, even

applying the lenient standard for the

pleadings of pro se plaintiffs, this claim is

insufficient to enable Defendants to frame a

responsive pleading. Defendants' motion to

dismiss this claim is DENIED, however

Defendants motion for a more definite

statement is GRANTED as to this claim. 

Plaintiffs must, at a minimum, specify the

provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

under which their claim arises and the

corresponding facts if not already alleged.

In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege as the Fourth

Claim for Relief a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

The Fourth Claim alleges:

23. Plaintiffs allege the Defendants have

violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 by encouraging, entrenching and

subsidizing acts and omissions that have

resulted in racial discrimination against the

Plaintiffs.

24. Plaintiffs contend Defendants' flagrant

disregard for Federal law, [sic] has resulted

in racially based discrimination of the

Plaintiffs, and that such victimization

forced Plaintiff Victor to attend school in a

hostile learning environment, thereby

creating a disparate impact on the

Plaintiffs.

Defendants have filed a motion for more definite statement

with regard to the Fourth Claim for Relief, contending that the

reference in the Fourth Claim to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964 is still too broad and vague to allow defendants to file

Case 1:04-cv-06680-LJO-DLB Document 29 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

a responsive pleading. Alternatively, defendants move to dismiss

the Fourth Claim if plaintiffs persist in failing to allege the

specific provision of Title VI allegedly violated by defendants.

Plaintiffs, who are proceeding in pro per, have filed a

statement of non-opposition to the motion for more definite

statement. 

Because of the statement of non-opposition, the court grants

defendants' motion with leave to amend. The Fourth Claim alleges

that it is based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Title VI is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Section 2000d

provides:

No person in the United States shall, on the

ground of race, color, or national origin, be

excluded from participation in, be denied the

benefits of, or be subjected to

discrimination under any program or activity

receiving Federal financial assistance.

The pleading requirements for a claim under Title VI are set

forth in Fobbs v. Holy Cross Health System Corp., 29 F.3d 1439,

1447 (9 Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1127 (1995), th

overruled on other grounds, Daviton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare

Corp., 241 F.3d 1131 (9 Cir. 2001). th

The court will grant plaintiffs the opportunity to amend to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Title VI. 

Failure to timely comply will result in the dismissal of the

claim under Title VI.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Defendants’ motion for more definite statement or to

Case 1:04-cv-06680-LJO-DLB Document 29 Filed 01/03/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

dismiss is granted with leave to amend.

2. Plaintiffs are ordered to file a Third Amended Complaint

in accordance with this Order within 30 days of the filing date

of this Order. Failure to timely comply will result in the

dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim for relief under Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 29, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06680-LJO-DLB Document 29 Filed 01/03/06 Page 4 of 4