Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00826/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00826-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERMANY DEVON THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FRESNO CITY COLLEGE, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISAL FOR FAILURE 

TO STATE A CLAIM

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Findings and Recommendations

Plaintiff Jermany Devon Thomas (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil action. On February 12, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an 

amended complaint and directed him to file a third amended complaint within thirty (30) days of 

the service of the order. (Doc. 19). Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed on March 25, 2016, 

is currently before the Court for screening. 

Screening Requirement

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro per. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is 

frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 13
2

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

27

28

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge 

unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any 

doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-1123 (9th Cir. 2012), 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but to survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims 

must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to 

reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 

F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not 

sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) State Center Community College District 

(“SCCCD”); (2) Dr. Christopher Villa, Administrator, in his individual and official capacity; (3) 

Laurel Blackerby-Slater, Academic Instructor, in her individual and official capacity; (4) Gerard 

Johnson, Academic Instructor, in his individual and official capacity; and (5) Doe 1, Student, in 

his or her individual capacity. 

Plaintiff alleges: SYMBAA is an on-campus program operated at Fresno City College 

and directed by Defendant Gerard Johnson. Plaintiff alleges that this program established a code 

of conduct that remained an “element of dysfunction” and had a purpose “to devastate current 

and future academic and professional opportunities.” Doc. 21 at ¶ 8. Plaintiff contends that “a 

disruptive change in the course seating structure, during the fall 2013 semester, created an 

enduring altercation of the plaintiff’s educational experience.” Id. 

Beginning in the spring 2014 semester, Plaintiff made efforts to re-arrange his academic

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 13
3

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

27

28

work schedule by integrating with the general student body. Plaintiff contends that he enjoyed 

an excellent reputation of outstanding academic performance, achieving the Dean’s List of 

Honor Students consistently for three full-term semesters and two summer sessions. Plaintiff 

also volunteered for disabled students. Plaintiff contends that this provided future opportunities, 

including graduating at the highest level of honors.

Defendant Blackerby-Slater taught mathematics courses during the spring and summer 

2014 semesters. Plaintiff alleges that the students “implemented verbal harassment” that 

resembled a flash mob, with the implied approval of Defendant Blackerby-Slater. Doc. 21 at ¶ 

11. Plaintiff contends that students began repeatedly referring to him as a disease on a daily 

basis. Plaintiff made an informal complaint to Defendant Blackerby-Slater in an effort to 

informally resolve the matter. 

Plaintiff contends that there was deliberate indifference shown by SCCCD staff. On or 

about March 20, 2015, Defendant Johnson allegedly stated to the class, “I’m glad you guys got 

the word out to stay away from that cock sucker.” Doc. 21 at ¶ 14. Plaintiff asserts that it was 

unclear whether the statement concerned him, but alleges that it was consistent with the context 

of the situation. Plaintiff further alleges that the insult was sufficiently severe that it permitted 

him to be subjected to intimidation, ridicule, political and economic oppression. Plaintiff also 

alleges that the general public also “acquiesced in the phenomenon.” Id. Plaintiff made an effort 

to correspond with the instructor at the close of class to inquire if the statement was made. 

Plaintiff alleges that the process surrounding the incident created unwarranted publicity and 

subjected him to public scorn, hatred and ridicule. 

Plaintiff further alleges that the participants published falsehoods about his medical 

health information. Plaintiff asserts that he was being classified as a skunk, disease and disease 

factor. Although Plaintiff was exercising his right to be let alone, private actors would profusely 

fart in his face. 

Plaintiff sought help from the Fresno City College crisis intervention team on March 20, 

2014. Plaintiff also filed an oral complaint with Defendant Villa. A scheduled appointment took 

place on April 23, 2014, and Defendant Villa intended to speak with Defendant Johnson. 

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/19/16 Page 3 of 13
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

27

28

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Villa did not take reasonable steps to correct or prevent the 

harassment and Plaintiff was not advised of any right to file a complaint with the Office of civil 

Rights of the U.S. Department of Educations as required by SCCCD administrative regulations 

and policy. Plaintiff asserts that he lost substantial rights due to the failure to forestall conduct 

by faculty members. 

On April 29, 2014, Plaintiff was having a private conversation with a classmate. Plaintiff 

stated, “Today is my birthday.” The following day, Defendant Blackerby-Slater announced to 

the class, “Today is infectious disease day.” On May 1, 2014, Defendant Blackerby-Slater 

approached Plaintiff and inquired, “How was your birthday yesterday Jermany?” Doc. 21 at ¶ 

24. Plaintiff contends that this was an attempt to gain tactical advantage and oppress. Plaintiff 

responded that his birthday was two days earlier and requested that Defendant Blackerby-Slater 

refrain from addressing jokes in his direction. Plaintiff walked out of class crying and spoke 

with Dr. Farley. On the same day, Plaintiff filed a formal written grievance with Defendant Villa

to address his concern. 

Plaintiff contends that the school district was deliberately indifferent to the students’ 

harassing acts and the administrators and teachers avoided confronting student-on-student 

harassment on the basis of Plaintiff’s disability. Plaintiff asserts that public officials constricted 

access to self-help and encouraged others to impede Plaintiff’s exercise of his rights. 

On July 2, 2014, Defendant Doe 1 filed an allegedly false report with SCCCD police. 

The allegations were that Plaintiff indirectly stated, “This is why school shootings happen.” 

Doc. 21 at 7. In addition, the allegations included that Plaintiff muttered to himself, that Plaintiff

had conversations with Defendant Doe 1 that made him/her feel uncomfortable and that Plaintiff 

initiated a disagreement with an instructor prior to uttering the alleged statement. Plaintiff 

reportedly began speaking to the student through the use of “surveys” in an attempt to achieve 

informal resolution. Id. 

Plaintiff was contacted at his residence and was arrested approximately five hours after 

the alleged incident. Plaintiff was handcuffed, transported to Fresno County Jail and charged 

with violations of the Penal Code. The Fresno County District Attorney declined to file charges 

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/19/16 Page 4 of 13
5

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

27

28

and Plaintiff was released from jail on July 7, 2014.

On July 16, 2014, Defendant Villa charged Plaintiff with violation of SCCCD regulations 

based on allegations that Plaintiff engaged in expression that was obscene, libelous or slanderous 

or that so incites students as to create a clear and present danger of the commission of unlawful 

acts on district premises. Plaintiff believes this document was antedated and concealed, which 

prompted him to file a complaint the Office of Civil Rights on February 6, 2015. 

Plaintiff asserts that he attempted to appeal the decision through channels authorized by 

SCCCD policy. On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff was allowed to complete on-line classes only. 

Plaintiff contends that this effectively denied him equal access to SCCCD’s resources and 

opportunities. 

On September 4, 2015, the Office of Civil Rights noted that SCCCD’s determination 

letter issued ten months after the complaint did not comport with SCCCD’s own procedure 

requiring investigation and determination letter be completed within three months. Plaintiff 

contends that the response infers an unlawful motive. 

Plaintiff alleges that SCCCD and subordinates authorized and tolerated practices, 

ratifying misconduct by: failing to properly discipline, restrict and control employees, including 

Defendant Doe 1; failing to forward evidence to the Fresno District Attorney of criminal acts 

committed by students and staff; and failing to establish and assure the functioning of a 

meaningful system for dealing with complaints of employee misconduct.

Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by all 

defendants; (2) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 by all defendants; (3) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 

1986; (4) violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; (5) intent to discriminate/deliberate 

indifference; (6) hostile learning environment; (7) retaliation; and (8) violation of California 

Civil Code 52.1(a). 

Discussion

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/19/16 Page 5 of 13
6

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

27

28

As noted above, detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as 

true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are 

not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

Many of Plaintiff’s assertions are conclusory, convoluted or based on irrational 

inferences. By way of example, Plaintiff alleges:

Per Se the student body of the program, simulated a practice encouraged, and 

directed by Fresno City College staff. Initially, they’d established a code of 

conduct that remains an element of dysfunction. Its purposes have been used to 

devastate current and future academic and professional opportunities. Enduring 

the conduct was skeptically unclear, whether the acts were of and concerning the 

plaintiff. However, a disruptive change in the course seating structure, during the

fall 2013 semester, created an enduring altercation of the plaintiff’s educational 

experience. 

Doc. 21 at ¶ 8.

Plaintiff also alleges: 

The process surrounding the incident before and after the comment was made, 

acted in a way that was creating unwarranted publicity. The phenomenon 

intentionally subjected the plaintiff to public scorn, hatred, and ridicule. The 

motive was unclear on the face of the obstructions to Constitutional Substantive 

Due Process. However, based upon the distinguishing characteristics of the 

instituted conduct, the devastation was clearly unified through concerted efforts. 

[¶] The participants enhanced the intrusion, by erroneously publishing calculated 

falsehoods about the plaintiff’s medical health information. The regressive 

transitioning implied an explicit approval of the plaintiff’s constitutional 

deprivation. The medium of speech was obscured by innuendo. Similar to a 

“blue walled” code of silence, like a “cover up.” The plaintiff was being 

discriminately classified by the process, as a skunk, disease, and “disease factor.” 

In addition, the private actors were developing ways to permissively under mind 

standard of personal security. Despite the plaintiff exercising the right to be let 

alone, there was bodily injury that continued. For example, through the private 

actors, they would profusely fart in the plaintiffs face. The inflicted injuries 

became impairments that were physically disabling, as a result of the initiation of 

the relentless process. 

Doc 21 at ¶ ¶ 16, 17.

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/19/16 Page 6 of 13
7

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

27

28

Plaintiff alleges:

The process was a deliberate practice, intended to foreclose on equal entitlement 

of the laws, in an attempt to render hollow redress. They began to attack the 

plaintiffs ability to maintain and enter into private relationships. This would 

sustain damages long enough to suit the predominant purpose. 

Doc. 21 at ¶ 23.

Plaintiff further alleges:

The response by the policy maker or lack thereof inferred an unlawful motive, in 

addition to inflicting serious damages to the plaintiffs standing and associations 

within the community. There was no rational basis for the plaintiff to differ from 

those who were similarly situated, that would justify the differential treatment. 

[¶] The objective evidence of the unlawful motive resembled itself as an over act, 

at the plaintiff’s place of employment. The participators encouraged the object of 

conspiracy, by conspiring in concert from one jurisdiction to another. The 

plaintiffs right to be let alone were rendered hollow. [¶] The devastation 

continues to flow through the conduct, and the illegal goals have placed the 

plaintiff vulnerable to third party crime. This conduct is used to seize right to 

equal access into public facilities. It has also diminished adequate remedies at 

law, and enhanced irreconcilable differences with state and federal rights. 

Doc. 21 at ¶¶ 38-40. Such statements are insufficient to support cognizable claims. In this 

fashion, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8. 

Additionally, the crux of Plaintiff’s complaint appears to stem from statements by 

Defendants Blackerby-Slater and Johnson. However, at the outset of Plaintiff’s complaint, he 

admits that it is unclear whether the acts were concerning or regarding Plaintiff. Doc. 21 at ¶ 8. 

The lack of a factual basis for his complaint not only fails to comply with Rule 8, but also the 

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which require that factual contentions have 

evidentiary support or will likely have evidentiary support. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3). 

2. Eleventh Amendment Immunity 

Insofar as Plaintiff attempts to bring claims against the State Center Community College 

District pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986, he may not do so. Defendant State 

Center Community College District is entitled to Eleventh Amendment Immunity. 

Within California, the Ninth Circuit has determined that Eleventh Amendment immunity 

extends to California community college school districts. Cerrato v. San Francisco Cmty. Coll. 

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/19/16 Page 7 of 13
8

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

27

28

Dist., 26 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 1994) (community college districts are entitled to Eleventh 

Amendment immunity as dependent instrumentalities of the state of California) (citing 

Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984)); Belanger v. Madera Unified 

School Dist., 963 F.2d 248, 254 (9th Cir. 1992) (school districts in California are considered 

agents of the state to which Eleventh Amendment immunity extends); Lopez v. Fresno City 

College, No. 1:11-CV-01468 AWI-MJS, 2012 WL 844911, * 6-7, (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2012) 

(State Center Community College District, erroneously sued as Fresno City College, entitled to 

Eleventh Amendment immunity in section 1983 civil rights action involving claims for 

constitutional violations and violations of various administrative policies). Thus, Plaintiff’s civil 

rights claims against the State Center Community College District are barred.

3. Claim One: 42 U.S.C. § 1983

The Civil Rights Act, under which certain causes of action proceed, provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] ... subjects, or causes to be 

subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution ... shall be liable to the party 

injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contends that defendants violated his constitutional rights, including 

his “rights to [be] free from unlawful injury, fourth amendment right to be free from unlawful 

seizure of his person, fifth and fourteenth amendment rights to due process of law, right to be let 

alone, right to be free from bodily injury, rights to free expressing through the right of 

association, and privacy.” Doc. 21 at ¶ 45. Plaintiff appears to attribute these violations to 

“employees” causing a deprivation of his rights. Id. at ¶ 46.

As an initial matter, section 1983 plainly requires that there be an actual connection or 

link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by 

Plaintiff. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 

(1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976). The Ninth Circuit 

has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 

meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, 

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/19/16 Page 8 of 13
9

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

27

28

or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Plaintiff appears to lump all of the individual defendants together in asserting that they 

violated his constitutional rights, including his Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 

Plaintiff fails to specifically identify the actions of the individual defendants in reference to his 

constitutional claims. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to state cognizable constitutional 

violations. 

First Amendment

Plaintiff’s complaint generally alleges that defendants have violated his “rights to free 

expressing through the right of association.” Plaintiff has failed to plead specific facts describing 

the protected speech at issue and how defendants interfered with his rights to free speech and 

freedom of association. See Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266-108 S.Ct. 

562, 98 L.Ed.2d 592 (1988) (discussing First Amendment rights of students and noting they are 

not coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. 

Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 513, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969) (conduct by student, in class 

or out of it, which for any reason materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or 

invasion of the rights of others is not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of 

speech); Brown v. Li, 308 F.3d 939, 947 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Fourth Amendment

Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from 

unlawful seizure of his person. The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches 

and seizures.” Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 137, 98 S.Ct. 1717, 56 L.Ed.2d 168 (1978). 

When evaluating a Fourth Amendment violation, we ask whether “the circumstances, viewed 

objectively, justify [the challenged] action.” Id. at 138. If so, that action was reasonable 

“whatever the subjective intent” motivating the relevant officials. Whren v. United States, 517 

U.S. 806, 814, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). This approach recognizes that the Fourth 

Amendment regulates conduct rather than thoughts. Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 338, n. 

2, 120 S.Ct. 1462, 146 L.Ed.2d 365 (2000).

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/19/16 Page 9 of 13
10

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

27

28

Here, none of the named defendants effectuated a seizure of his person. The SCCCD 

police officer identified in Plaintiff’s complaint is not a defendant in this action. Further, there is 

nothing to connect Defendants Johnson, Blackerby-Slater or Villa with the actions of the 

SCCCD police officer. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations of a conspiracy are insufficient. With 

respect to the assertions of the Doe Defendant, which formed the basis of the arrest, Plaintiff 

does not deny that he made a statement regarding school shootings or incited an argument with 

school officials. 

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments - Due Process

Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due 

process rights. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no one shall “be 

deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” “[T]he Fifth Amendment’s due 

process clause applies only to the federal government.” Bingue v. Prunchak, 512 F.3d 1169, 

1174 (9th Cir.2008). Since there are no federal defendants in this action, the Fifth Amendment 

Due Process Clause does not apply.

Although not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff is alleging a violation of his due 

process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment based on defendants’ failures to process his 

written complaint in a timely manner and limiting him to online classes. To gain the procedural 

protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that (1) he was deprived of a liberty or property interest and (2) defendants failed to provide 

sufficient due process with respect to such deprivation. Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Missouri. v. 

Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 83-85, 98 S.Ct. 948, 55 L.Ed.2d 124 (1978). The court assumes without 

deciding that Plaintiff had a property or liberty interest in continued enrollment at Fresno City 

College. In this instance, however, Plaintiff admits that he was permitted to attend online 

classes. Thus, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he was deprived of any property interest. 

Further, the record establishes that Plaintiff’s written complaint – unrelated to his ability to 

attend classes on campus -- was investigated, albeit in an untimely manner. 

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/19/16 Page 10 of 13
11

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

27

28

Privacy

Plaintiff alleges that his right to privacy was violated. Although not entirely clear, 

Plaintiff presumably is referencing the disclosure of his medical health information and the 

subsequent actions of private actors calling him a skunk, disease and disease factor. The right to 

privacy encompasses an individual’s interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters, Whalen 

v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599, 97 S.Ct. 869, 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977), and has been held to extend to the

disclosure of medical or psychiatric records to the public. See, e.g., Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 

1495, 1513 (11th Cir. 1991); Allen v. Hall, 1993 WL 20136, *1-2 (D. Or. Jan. 27, 1993). Here, 

Plaintiff has failed to identify the medical information allegedly disclosed by individual 

defendants or any other factual information sufficient to support a privacy claim. That private 

actors may have called him names is not a sufficient basis to infer that medical health

information was improperly disclosed. Despite leave to amend, Plaintiff has failed to cure the 

deficiencies in this claim. 

4. Claims Two and Three: 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986

Plaintiff asserts that defendants conspired to deprive him of property, equal protection 

and due process. Section 1985 prohibits conspiracies to interfere with certain civil rights. A 

claim pursuant to section 1985 must allege facts supporting an allegation that the individual 

defendants conspired. “A mere allegation of conspiracy without factual specificity is 

insufficient.” Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not include any facts supporting a conspiracy claim by the 

individual defendants, and his section 1986 claim against Defendant State Center Community 

College District is barred. 

“Section 1986 imposes liability on every person who knows of an impending violation of 

section 1985 but neglects or refuses to prevent the violation.” Id. Therefore, a section 1986 

claim only may be stated if the complaint contains a valid section 1985 claim. Id. Here, Plaintiff 

has not stated a valid section 1985 claim. Plaintiff has been unable to cure these deficiencies. 

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/19/16 Page 11 of 13
12

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

27

28

5. Claim Four: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

To establish a violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show that (1) 

he is an individual with a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified for the benefit or services 

sought; (3) he was denied the benefit or services of the program solely by reason of his 

disability; and (4) the program receives federal financial assistance. See Duvall v. Cnty. of 

Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001).

Plaintiff fails to allege that he is an individual with a disability or that he was denied a 

benefit or service by reason of a disability. Plaintiff appears to suggest that other students 

perceived him to be disabled or diseased or regarded him as having a disability, alleging that he 

was harassed and called names. Doc. 21 at ¶¶ 55, 58, 59, 62. Plaintiff also fails to establish that 

SCCCD, Fresno City College or any of the named defendants denied him a benefit or service 

because of a disability. Plaintiff has been unable to cure the deficiencies of this claim. 

6. Claim Five: California Civil Code § 52.1(a)

Plaintiff attempts to bring suit pursuant to California Civil Code section 52.1(a). 

However, this subsection applies to actions brought by the Attorney General, district attorney or 

city attorney. Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(a). 

Insofar as Plaintiff is attempting to bring a claim on his own behalf for civil damages 

pursuant to subsection 52.1(b) based on rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United 

States or the State of California, he has failed to state a cognizable claim. Cal. Civ. Code § 

52.1(b). As discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim based on violations 

of the Constitution or laws of the United States. Further, Plaintiff has not alleged a cognizable 

claim based on any violation of the California Constitution or state law. 

Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to pursue tort claims under California law

against a public entity or its employees, the Government Claims Act requires exhaustion of those 

claims with the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, and Plaintiff is 

required to specifically allege compliance in his complaint. Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 42 

Cal.4th 201, 208-09 (Cal. 2007); State v. Superior Court of Kings Cnty. (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 

1234, 1239 (Cal. 2004); Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty. Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/19/16 Page 12 of 13
13

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

27

28

1111 (9th Cir. 2001); Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 

1995). Plaintiff has failed to allege such compliance or any facts excusing such compliance. 

7. Request for Joinder

Plaintiff has filed a related request for joinder of claims regarding his employment at 

Denny’s. Doc. 22. Given the Court’s intended recommendation to dismiss this action for failure 

to state a claim, Plaintiff’s request for joinder of unrelated claims is moot.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 and fails to state a cognizable federal 

claim. Despite multiple opportunities, Plaintiff has been unable to cure the deficiencies of his 

claims and further leave to amend is not warranted. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 

(9th Cir. 2000). 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. This action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim; and 

2. Plaintiff’s request for joinder be denied as moot.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/19/16 Page 13 of 13