Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00826/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00826-2/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,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FRESNO CITY COLLEGE et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

SCREENING ORDER

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

this civil action. Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on June 1, 2015, 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 

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, 

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 9
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

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

Although the factual underpinnings of Plaintiff’s allegations are not entirely clear, the 

Complaint in this case appears to concern a May 1, 2014 internal complaint Plaintiff filed against 

Defendant Fresno City College. (Doc. 1 at 2). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Fresno City 

College failed to comply with internal procedures by delaying its response to the internal 

complaint. Id. Plaintiff also mentions the filing of another internal complaint with the Office of 

Civil Rights on February 6, 2015. Id. at 3. Plaintiff makes passing references to acts of 

discrimination and a hostile learning environment, but sets forth no specifics regarding either the 

acts of Defendants or the timing of those acts. Id. at 2-3. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to 

state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend his claims to the extent he can 

do so in good faith. To assist Plaintiff, the Court provides the pleading and legal standards that 

appear relevant to his claims. 

///

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/20/15 Page 2 of 9
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

A. Pleading Standards

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). 

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.

Plaintiff’s complaint is neither short nor plain. As a general matter, Plaintiff’s complaint 

lacks important details regarding what happened, when it happened and who was involved. 

Absent this basic factual information, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff states a 

cognizable claim. 

2. Linkage Requirement

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. The statute 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, 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).

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/20/15 Page 3 of 9
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 fails to specifically link any of the individual defendants identified in the caption 

of this action to his claims. Plaintiff merely lumps all “defendants” together in his claims. If 

Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint, he must allege what each individual defendant did or did 

not do that resulted in a violation of his constitutional rights.

3. Eleventh Amendment Immunity 

Insofar as Plaintiff attempts to bring claims against Fresno City College pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, 1985 and 1986, he may not do so. Defendant Fresno City College, as part of the 

State Center Community College District, is entitled to Eleventh Amendment Immunity on these 

claims. 

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

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

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 Fresno City College are barred. 

B. Legal Standards

1. Count One: Substantive Due Process – Privacy

Plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants violated his right to privacy under the 

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution “when they began disclosing medical 

information in a false light.” (Doc. 1 at 3.) 

The right to privacy encompasses an individual’s interest in avoiding disclosure of 

personal matters, Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599, (1977), and has been held to extend to the 

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/20/15 Page 4 of 9
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

disclosure of medical or psychiatric records to the public and/or family members. 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. Defendant Fresno City College is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity on 

this claim. 

2. Count Two: California Constitution – Speech

The second count of Plaintiff’s complaint asserts a violation of the free speech guarantees 

of the California Constitution. In relevant part, section 2 provides that “[e]very person may 

freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the 

abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.” Cal. Const. art. 

I, § 2. Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any factual allegations related a free speech claim. 

Further, it is unclear if Plaintiff is attempting to pursue a violation of California Civil Code 

section 52.1, which creates liability 

[i]f a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by 

threat, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or 

coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights 

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured 

by the Constitution or laws of [California].

Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(a). 

3. Counts Three and Four: 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986

Plaintiff asserts that “defendants” encouraged a conspiracy to violate his civil rights. 

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 complaint does not 

include any facts supporting a conspiracy claim by the individual defendants, and his section 

1986 claim against Defendant Fresno City College is barred. 

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/20/15 Page 5 of 9
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

“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. 

4. Count Five: California Constitution

Plaintiff has alleged a violation of California Constitution, Article I, § 1, which provides: 

“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are 

enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and 

pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Cal. Const., art. I, § 1. Plaintiff has not 

included any factual allegations against the defendants to support this purported claim.

5. Counts Six and Ten: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act – Discrimination

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’s complaint fails to allege any facts establishing the elements of a Section 504 

claim. At the most basic level, 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. Rather, Plaintiff appears to 

allege that he was improperly characterized as disabled. If Plaintiff cannot establish that he is an 

individual with a disability, then he cannot state a Section 504 claim. 

6. Count Seven: Equal Protection

Although unclear, it appears that Plaintiff is asserting an equal protection claim based on 

disability.

“To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of 

the Fourteenth Amendment a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with an intent or 

purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class.” Lee v. 

City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/20/15 Page 6 of 9
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

1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). However, the disabled “are not a protected class for purposes of 

equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Gamble v. Escondido, 104 F.3d 300, 307 

(9th Cir. 1996) (citing City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 446, 105 

S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985)). Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot state a disability-based equal 

protection claim. 

7. Counts Eight and Nine: Title VII – Employment Discrimination

To the extent Plaintiff is pursuing a discrimination action pursuant to Title VII of the 1964 

Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, et seq, in Counts 8 and 9, his claims are not cognizable. 

As an initial matter, Title VII only protects employees, not students or other non-employees. 

Adcock v. Chrysler Corp., 166 F.3d 1290, 1292 (9th Cir. 1999). Thus, Plaintiff is “entitled to the 

protections of Title VII only if []he is an employee” of Fresno City College. Murray v. Principal 

Fin. Group, Inc., 613 F.3d 943, 944 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff fails to allege that he is an 

employee. Rather, Plaintiff’s claim that defendants created a “hostile learning environment” 

suggests that he was student. Further, Title VII only prohibits discrimination on the basis of 

“race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” not disability. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable Title VII claim. 

8. Counts Eleven: Cal. Penal Code § 422.6(a)

Plaintiff alleges a violation of California Penal Code section 422.6(a). Plaintiff has not 

identified any authority indicating that this cited section of the California Penal Code creates a 

private right of action. 

9. Count Twelve: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Infliction of emotional distress is a state law tort claim. Martinez v. City of Los Angeles, 

141 F.3d 1373, 1378 (9th Cir. 1998). To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to pursue a tort claim

under California law, 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, 1111 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/20/15 Page 7 of 9
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

2001); Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995); KarimPanahi, 839 F.2d at 627. Plaintiff has failed to allege such compliance or any facts excusing 

such compliance. 

C. Leave to Amend

“Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(quoting former Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he will be given an 

opportunity to amend his claims to cure the identified deficiencies.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to 

state a cognizable claim. As noted above, the Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to 

file an amended complaint to cure the identified deficiencies. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 

claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 

“buckshot” complaints).

In the amended complaint, Plaintiff shall state as briefly as possible the facts of the case, 

describing how each defendant is involved. For each claim, Plaintiff shall clearly and succinctly 

state the facts identifying the actions or omissions by each individual defendant. Although 

accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded 

pleading.” Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8 and for failure to state a cognizable claim; 

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/20/15 Page 8 of 9
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

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

first amended complaint; 

3. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this 

order, this action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/20/15 Page 9 of 9