N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W . C ., Jr., Stude nt, a

m inor, by

and through his Gua

rdia n , W i ld C ha

ng, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. R OW LAND UNIFIED SC HOOL DISTR IC T; EM ILY LAM AR ; M ITC H ELL B R

UNYER , De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-56725 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-02168-AG-R

AO
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Andre w J. Guilford, District Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 8, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and B Y B EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd AR TER TON, * * Distric t Judge
.



# FIL ED APR 30 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Ja ne t B ond Arte rton, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of C onne c tic ut, sitting by de signa tion.Pla intiff-Appe lla nt W .C
. , Jr. a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism i ssing his
c om pla i nt for fa ilure to sta

te a c la im a s we ll a s the distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of le ave to
am e nd. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re ve rse . W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l for fa ilure to sta t e a c l a im unde r Fe de ra l R

u le of C i vil Proc e dure 12(b)(6), a nd we re vie wthe de n i a l of le ave to a m e nd a c om pla int for a

buse of disc re tion. C

u rry v . Ye lp Inc
. , 875 F.3d 1219, 1224 (9th C ir. 2017). Fe de ra l R u le of C i vil Proc e dure 15(a ) provide s tha t le ave to a

m e nd should be “ fre e ly ” grante d “ whe n justic e so re quire s.” As a re sult, we have c o nsiste ntly he ld tha t a distric t c ourt a

buse s its disc re tion in de ny i ng le ave to a m e n d “ unle ss the distric t c o urt ‘ de te rm ine s tha t the ple a d ing c ould not possibly be c ure d by the
a lle gation of other fa c ts,’ ” Bly -Mage e v . C alifornia , 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th C ir. 2001) (quoting Lope

z v . Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba nc )), or

“ if the p la intiff ha d se ve ra l opportunitie s to a m e nd its c om

p l a int a nd re pe ate dly fa ile d to c ure de fic ie nc ie s,” Te le saurus VPC

, LLC v . Pow e r , 623 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th C ir. 2010). He re , we a gre e with the distric t c ourt tha t the fa c ts a lle ge d in W .C
. ’ s first
am e nde d c o m

pla int we re insuffic i e nt to sta te a pla usible c la im

of politic a l bia s on the p art of his English te a c he r. Ne ve rthe le s s, W .C . c la im s tha t if gra n te d le ave to
2am e nd, he c ould a l le ge “ othe r fa c ts to show a patte rn of lopside d c ritic i sm ” suffic i e nt to e sta

blish c irc um sta

ntia l e vide nc e of politic a l bia s. W hile we e xpre ss no opinion a s to whe the r suc h fa c ts a c tua l ly e x ist, we c annot c onc lude tha t furthe r am e ndm e nt would befutile . M ore ove r, the fa c t tha t W
. C . ha s a lre a dy

am e nde d his
c om pla i nt onc e doe s not a

m ount to “ se ve ra l opportunitie s to a m e n d [his]
c om pla i nt” and “ re p e ate d[] fa il[ure ] to c ure de fic ie nc ie s.” Se e id. Fina lly , the re is
no e vide n c e of undue de la y , ba d fa ith, or pre

judic e to the opposing pa rty . Se e N

. Slope Borough v . Rogstad (In re Rogstad) , 126 F.3d 1224, 1228 (9th C i r. 1997). W e thus c onc lude that the distric t c ourt a buse d its disc re tion in de ny ing W .C . le ave to a m e nd his c om

pla int. RE V E RSE D.

3W

.C ., J r. v . Row l a nd USD , No. 17-56725 (Pa s a de na - April 8, 2019) B YB EE, J., dissenting: I would a ffirm the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt dismi ssing W .C .’ s suit for fa ilure to sta

t e a pla usible c la im

for re lie f. Se eAshc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Be ll Atlantic C

o rp. v . Tw ombly , 550 U.S. 544 (2007). W .C . c om pla ins tha t he “ i lle ga lly re c e ive d a fa i ling gra de in his [high sch ool sophomore ] English
c ourse ” in “ viola

tion of his right of expre ssion.” Ac c ording to his First Am e nde d C om pla int, his te a c h e r gave his pa pe r, e ntitle d “ De m oc ra c y Enda nge re d or Stre ngthe ne d Afte r Trum

p’ s Vic tory ? ” , a

n “ F” a fte r she ha d wa

rne d him tha t the topic wa s “ too broa d, too re c e nt a nd too bia se d ” to sa

tisfy the a ssignm e n t a

nd tha t

“ if he a d he re d to his topic , he would re c e i ve a fa iling gra de .” W .C . c an didly
a dm its tha

t he fa ile d to inc lude m ate ria l in thebibliogra phy tha t wa s re quire d a

nd that his pa pe r wa s not “ a

bove c ritic ism .” He argue s , howe ve r, tha t his te a c h e r gave

“ undue we ight” to “punc tuation issue s” and tha t othe r stude nts submi tte d pa pe rs with broa d topic s a

n d ha d issue s with the ir pa pe rs, but we re not give n a fa iling gra d e . His only a l le gation of dire c t bia s by his te a c h e r wa s he r e x c lam ation, m a de shortly a fte r the 2016 e le c tion a

nd m onths be fore this a ssignm e n t, tha t “ I just c an’ t be lie ve tha

t TV a c tor is now our pre side nt.” The re is nothing c lose to a viola tion of theFirst or Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nts in his First Ame nde d C om pla int. W e have no busine ss re -gra d ing pa pe rs 

# FIL ED APR 30 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALSa c c ording to our own se nse of what is good or bad writing. W .C
. ha s ha d two shots a t m aking out a

fe de ra l c a se of unla

wful gra d ing a

n d he c ouldn’ t do it. I would se nd W
. C . ba c k to thec la ssroom and a ffirm

the judgm e nt of the distric t
c ourt.