Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00932/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00932-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Hope A. Y. Yzryahl, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Southwest College of Naturopathic 

Medicine and Health Sciences, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-00932-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 

 Defendants Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine (“SCNM”) and its 

named employees move to dismiss Plaintiff Hope Yzryahl’s complaint under Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion is fully briefed, and no 

party has requested oral argument. The Court will grant the motion and give Plaintiff 30 

days to amend her complaint. 

I. Legal Standard. 

When analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the 

well-pled factual allegations are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to 

the nonmoving party. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). Legal 

conclusions couched as factual allegations are not entitled to the assumption of truth, 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009), and therefore are insufficient to defeat a 

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, In re Cutera Securities Litigation, 610 F.3d 

1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, the complaint must 

plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Case 2:15-cv-00932-DGC Document 31 Filed 10/05/15 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663. 

“[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). 

When a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the allegations of the complaint must be 

construed liberally. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987). But a 

court “may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey 

v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

II. Analysis. 

 A. Count One. 

 Count one is titled “Negligence,” but appears to assert a violation under Title VI 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Doc. 1, ¶ 12; 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Under this statute, 

“[n]o 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 aid.” Fobbs v. 

Holy Cross Health Sys. Corp., 29 F.3d 1439, 1447 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled in part on 

other grounds by Daviton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 241 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 

2001). To state a claim for a violation of this statute, Plaintiff must plead that (1) the 

entity is engaging in racial discrimination, and (2) the entity receives federal financial 

assistance. Id. 

Plaintiff alleges various facts regarding Defendants’ alleged denial of her financial 

aid, but fails to allege facts supporting her claim that the denial was based on her race, 

national origin, color, or gender. Doc. 1, ¶ 12. Plaintiff identifies herself as an 

“Aboriginal-Autochthonous American (misnomered African American) national origin, 

color (brown), and sex (female).” Id. Her complaint, however, does not allege facts to 

show that these characteristics were the reason for Defendants’ actions. She provides no 

allegations of discriminatory statements or acts by Defendants against herself or others. 

Case 2:15-cv-00932-DGC Document 31 Filed 10/05/15 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

Her response to the motion to dismiss asserts that employees of SCNM “engaged in a 

campaign of prejudice and racism,” but Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain this 

allegation, nor does it explain the nature of the campaign or the facts supporting her 

assertion that it occurred. Doc. 22 at 13. Nor does Plaintiff identify the particular acts 

committed by each Defendant that give rise to liability under count one. 

In short, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges little more than a “sheer possibility that a 

defendant has acted unlawfully,” which is not sufficient. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Even 

liberally construed, the complaint lacks sufficient facts to support a Title VI claim. See 

Eldridge, 832 F.2d at 1137. 

 B. Counts Two and Three. 

Counts two and three also are titled “Negligence,” but appear to assert violations 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973 (“RA”). Count two asserts violation of Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the RA. 

Doc. 1, ¶ 13. Count three asserts that Defendants, specifically Ms. Borjas and Ms. 

Winquist, “knowingly and willfully retaliated and coerced Plaintiff by ceasing all 

communication with Plaintiff, barr[ing] Plaintiff from attending class, [and] sending and 

receiving emails as well as contacting faculty and staff at SCNM.” Id., ¶ 14. 

 To state a claim under Title II of the ADA, Plaintiff must allege: (1) she is an 

individual with a disability; (2) she is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the 

benefit of some public entity’s services, programs, or activities; (3) she was either 

excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the public entity’s services, 

programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and 

(4) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of her disability. 

Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12132). To 

prove a violation of § 504 of the RA, Plaintiff similarly must show that (1) she is an 

individual with a disability; (2) she is otherwise qualified to receive the benefit; (3) she 

was denied the benefits of the program solely by reason of her disability; and (4) the 

program receives federal financial assistance. Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 

Case 2:15-cv-00932-DGC Document 31 Filed 10/05/15 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

1135 (9th Cir. 2001). 

 Plaintiff’s complaint does not plead facts showing that she is an individual with a 

disability under the ADA or the RA. Her complaint contains no allegations regarding her 

alleged disability or why it satisfies the requirement of either statute. Nor does Plaintiff 

allege facts showing that she was qualified to receive the benefits denied by Defendants 

or that the benefits were denied because of her disability. Count three contains 

allegations regarding retaliation and coercion, but does not indicate whether these 

allegations (which also have scant factual support in the complaint) are intended to state 

another claim in addition to the ADA and RA claims mentioned in count two. Finally, 

Plaintiff does not identify the particular acts committed by each Defendant that subject 

that Defendant to liability. 

III. Guidance to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff must become familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona 

(“Local Rules”). See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Pro se litigants 

must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”); Jacobsen v. Filler, 

790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants “should not be treated more 

favorably than parties with attorneys of record”); Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 

784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Although pro se, [plaintiff] is expected to abide by 

the rules of the court in which he litigates.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are 

available at the following Internet website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A 

copy of the District of Arizona’s Local Rules may be obtained from the Clerk’s Office or 

on the Court’s website. 

For purposes of the amended complaint, Plaintiff is directed to Rule 8 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint “shall contain (1) a 

short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, . . . 

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, 

and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) 

Case 2:15-cv-00932-DGC Document 31 Filed 10/05/15 Page 4 of 5
- 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 

(emphasis added). These pleading requirements shall be set forth in separate and discrete 

paragraphs. The paragraphs must be numbered in consecutive order. Each paragraph 

must be “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). The discussion in part II 

of this order identifies the factual shortcomings in Plaintiff’s complaint. 

The Court will grant Plaintiff until October 30, 2015 to file an amended complaint. 

Plaintiff is warned that if she fails to file an amended complaint by that date, the case will 

be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Plaintiff is further warned that if she fails to 

prosecute this action, or if she fails to comply with the rules or any Court order, the Court 

may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); Ghazali v. 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). 

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) is granted. 

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by October 30, 2015. 

 Dated this 5th day of October, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00932-DGC Document 31 Filed 10/05/15 Page 5 of 5