Filed 5/8/14 Graham v. Cal. Bd. of Education CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

JACK GRAHAM,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents. B245288

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC482694)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Supe rior Court of Los Angeles County. Malcolm Mackey, Judge. Affirmed.

Jack Graham, in pro per.

Amy Bisson Holloway, General Counsel, Edmundo Aguilar, Assistant General Counsel and Jamie M. Errecart, Deputy General Counsel for Defendants and Respondents.

_____________ _____________2 INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant Jack Graham is a tutor and substitute teacher. In 2010 and again in 2011, he applied to be added to California’s lis t of approved providers of supplemental education services (SES), whic h the state is required to maintain as a condition of receiving federal fu nding pursuant to the No Ch ild Left Behind Act (NCLB) (20 U.S.C. § 6301, et seq.). 1 Both applications were rejected as “incomplete” by defendant and respondent the California Depa rtment of Education (the Department).

Plaintiff filed this action in 2012. The co mplaint names as defendants the Department, the California Board of Education (the Boar d), the former Superintendent of Public Instruction (Jack O’Connell), the current Supe rintendant of Public Instruction (Tom Torlakson), the Director of the Department’s District and School Improvement Division (Fred Balcom), and former and current (as of the time the co mplaint was filed) members of the Board (collectively, defendants). 2 It alleges causes of action for violation of plaintiff’s rights to free speech, to work an d to equal protection under Title 42 of the

United States Code section 1983 (§ 1983) and the Califor nia Constitution, government

1 Plaintiff represented himself in the trial court and continues to do so on appeal. In addition to plaintiff, the comp laint named several classes of plaintiffs, including other tutors, parents and students, school district s and taxpayers. The Appellant’s Opening Brief (AOB) stated that plaintiff was repres enting himself and all other parties. We rejected the AOB because plaintiff is not an attorney. In a Notice of Errata and Corrections, plaintiff removed the offending statement. We address only the issues relating to whether the complaint states a cause of action on plai ntiff’s behalf, not whether it states a cause of action on be half of any other purported class.

2 All references to “the co mplaint” are to the First Ame nded Complaint. The former Board members named in the complaint are: Theodore Mitchell, Ruth Bloom, Yvonne Chan, Gregory Jones, Jonathan Williams, David Lopez, James Aschwanden, Jorge Lopes, Rae Belisle, Alan Ar katov and Benjamin Austin. The named “current” Board members are: Michale Kirst, Trish Williams , Carl Cohn, Aida Molina, James Ramos, Patricia Rucker, Ilene Straus.3 waste in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 526a and unfair competition. 3 The gravamen of plaintiff’s claims is that the criteria developed by defendants to evaluate SES provider applications is unreasonable and in consistent with the federal standards; but for the challenged criteria, plaintiff’s app lication would be comp lete; and defendants should be ordered to accept and approve hi s application to be added to the list of approved SES providers. The trial court sust ained defendants’ demu rrer to the complaint without leave to amend. On appeal, plaintiff contends he pleaded facts sufficient to state

each cause of action. We affirm.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We begin with the well-esta blished standard of review from an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend: We accep t as true all well-pleaded facts and those subject to judicial notice, but not deductions, contentions, or conclusions of law or fact.

We review the trial court’s ruling on a demurrer independently without deference to the trial court. ( Diamond Benefits Life Ins. Co. v. Troll (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1, 5.)

Whether leave should have been granted is reviewed for abus e of discretion; denial of

leave to amend is an abuse of discretion if there is any reasonable probability the defect can be cured by an amendment. ( Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078–1079.) “The judgment must be affirmed ‘if a ny one of the several grounds of demurrer is well taken. [Citations.]’ [Citation. ] However, it is error for a trial court to sustain a demurrer when the plaintiff has stat ed a cause of action under any possible legal theory. [Citation.]” ( Aubry v. Tri–City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

3 The complaint also included causes of action captioned “Conspiracy” (the fifth cause of action) and “Declaratory Relief” (the sixth cause of action). Conspiracy is a basis for liability for a civil wrong but is not a cause of action. ( Faunce v. Cate (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 166, 173.) Similarly, declar atory relief is an equitable remedy, not a cause of action. ( Ibid .) Because the declaratory relief a nd conspiracy claims in this case were derivative of other causes of action as to which we find the trial court properly sustained defendants’ demurrer, we conclude defendants’ demurrer to the so-called conspiracy and declaratory relief causes of action was also properly sustained.4 FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTORY SCHEMES

We next turn to an overview of the fe deral and state statutory schemes governing SES providers. A stated purpose of NCLB is to meet “ ‘the educational needs of lowachieving children in our Nation’s highest-po verty schools, limited English proficient children, migratory children, children with disabilities, Indian children, neglected or delinquent children, and young children in need of reading assistance.’ (20 U.S.C. § 6301(2).)” ( Alejo v. Torlakson (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 768, 774.) NCLB “reflects Congress’ judgment that the best way to ra ise the level of education nationwide is by granting state and local officials the flexib ility to develop and im plement educational programs that address local needs, while hold ing them accountable for the results. NCLB implements this approach by requiring States receiving federal funds to define performance standards and to make regul ar assessments of progress toward the

attainment of those standard s. (20 U.S.C. §§ 6311(b)(2) .) NCLB conditions continued receipt of funds on demonstrations of ‘adequate yearly progress.’ ( Ibid .)” ( Horne v.

Flores (2009) 557 U.S. 433, 461; see also 20 U.S.C. § 6316(a)(1)(A).) Schools that fail to make adequate year ly progress for two consecutive years are designated as needing “improve ment;” those that fail to ma ke adequate progress for an additional two years are designated as needing “corrective action;” and a school that fails to make adequate progress for another year (i .e. five consecutive years) is designated as needing “restructuring.” Schools falling in any of the three designations must provide

students of low-income fa milies with SES from an approved provider with a demonstrated record of effectiveness. (20 U.S.C. § 6316 (e)(1).) St ates must maintain a list of approved SES pr oviders. (20 U.S.C. § 6316(e)(4 )(C).) NCLB sets forth general standards providers must meet to be includ ed on the state’s approved SES provider list: “[The] provider shall agree to carry out the fo llowing: [¶] (A) Provide parents of children receiving supplemental educationa l services under this subsection and the appropriate local educational agency w ith information on the progress of the children in increasing achieve ment, in a format and, to the extent practicable, a language that such parents can understa nd. [¶] (B) Ensure that instruction5 provided and content used by the provid er are consistent with the instruction provided and content used by the local educational agency and State, and are aligned with State student academic achieve ment standards. [¶] (C) Meet all applicable Federal, State, and local hea lth, safety, and civil rights laws. [¶] (D) Ensure that all instruction and c ontent under this subsection are secular, neutral, and nonideological.” (20 U.S.C. § 6316(e)(5).)

More detailed standards are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (the federal regulations). The federal regulations require st ates to develop and apply objective criteria to evaluate potential SES providers. (34 C. F.R. §§ 200.47(a)(2), 200. 47(b).) States must

also monitor the effectivene ss and quality of the services provided by approved SES providers (34 C.F.R. § 200.47(a)(4)(i)) and to withdraw approval from a provider that “fails, for two consecutive years, to contri bute to increasing academic proficiency of students receiving [SES] from that provide r[.]” (34 C.F.R. § 200.47(a)(4)(ii).) In California, the discretion afforded stat es under NCLB is exercised by the Board. ( Coachella Valley Unified School Dist rict v. State of California (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 93, 115 ( Coachella ); see Ed. Code, § 52058.1, subd . (a) [establishing NCLB “Liaison Team” to advise Superintendent of Public In struction and Board on a ll matters related to implementation of NCLB].) It is the Board that is task ed with adopting rules and regulations to implement NCLB. (See Ed. Code, § 12001 [“The state board shall adopt rules and regulations for the allocation of fe deral funds to school districts entitled to receive federal funds for the support of schools. . . .”]; see also Gov. Code, § 11342.2 [to be valid, regulations adopted by state agency with authority to adopt regulations to carry out provisions of a statute mu st be both reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of

the statute and be consistent with the st atute].) The rules and regulations which implement the federal standards for approv ing SES providers are set forth in the California Administrative Code (the administ rative code). (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, §§ 13705 et seq.) Both the federal regulations and the admini strative code define “SES provider” as an “entity.” The federal definition is “a non-profit entity, a for-profit entity, an LEA [Local Educational Authority], an educatio nal service agency, a public school, including6 a public charter school, or a private school ” that “has a demonstrated record of effectiveness in increasing academic achiev ement of students . . . .” (34 C.F.R. § 200.47(b)(1)(i).) Consistent with the fe deral regulations, the administrative code requires an “eligible applicant” for approved SES provider status to be “a public or private (nonprofit or for-profit) entity, public school (including a charter school), private school, school district, county office of education, instituti on of higher education, faithbased or community-based or ganization, or business that is legally constituted and qualified to do business in Calif ornia[.]” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 13075.1(d).) The federal regulations and the administ rative code require an SES provider applicant to meet several criteri a which we describe below.

Business Licenses

Section 13705.2 of the administrative c ode requires a completed SES provider application to include “[e]vi dence that [the applicant] holds a valid business license issued by the California Secretary of State if it intends to provide se rvices statewide, or

that it holds a valid business license issued by the appropriate local licensing entity where it intends to provide services[.]” (C al. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 13075.2(b)(7).)
Academic Criteria The federal regulations require that an SE S provider have “a demonstrated record of effectiveness in increasing the academic achievement of students in” math, science, reading and language arts. (34 C.F.R. § 200.47(b)(i).) Section 13705.1(c) of the

administrative code defines “demonstrated re cord of effectiveness in increasing academic proficiency of students” to mean “an eligib le applicant has documented improvement in the academic performance of a majority of st udents who have completed the approved provider’s basic program in SES, as evidenced by an increase in individual student scores for two consecutive years on pre and post te sts for the subjects in which they are providing services . . . .” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 13075.1(c).) And section 13075.2(b)(1) requires applicants to show: “A demons trated record of effectiveness in increasing the academi c proficiency of students from the two immediately preceding school years based on data, disaggregated within content area by7 grade level for which the SES applicati on is submitted[.]” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5,§ 13075.2(b)(1).)
Parent Recommendations The federal regulations also require the state to consider parent recommendations “regarding the success of th e providers’ instructional program in increasing student achievement” and “[e]valuation results, if any, demonstra ting that the instructional program has improved student ach ievement.” (34 C.F.R. § 200 .47(b)(3)(iii).) Consistent with the federal regulations, California requir es a completed SES provider application to contain, “At least five letters of reference fro m previous clients (e.g., families, schools, districts, teachers, etc.) offering testimonial information about the po sitive impact of the applicant’s program.” (Cal. C ode Regs., tit. 5, § 13075.2(b)(2).)
Financial Soundness The federal regulations also require an SE S provider to be “financially sound.” (34 C.F.R. § 200.47(b)(iii).) California implements this fe deral requirement by requiring applicants to demonstrate that they are “fis cally sound” as shown by: “(A) Proof of financial resources to operate as an approved provider through the first six months of the first year for which it is seeking approval, in cluding a description of how the organization receives funding (e.g., grants, fees-for-service s, etc.) separate from reimbursements for provider services; . . . (B) Proof of fina ncial viability (e.g., through audits, financial statements, or credit rating); and (C) Organizational budgets that identify all sources of revenues available to the applicant and cash flow activity related to the expenditures of that revenue.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 13075.2(b)(12)(A)(B)&(C ).) Also in keeping with the federal requirement that SES providers be “financially sound,” the administrative code requires the application to include “[a] description of the staffing, fiscal, equipment, and facility resources of the organization th at enable it to work with students in compliance with th ese regulations and applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations[.]” (Cal. Co de Regs., tit. 5, § 13075.2(b)(10).) With this statutory scheme in mind, we tu rn next to the factual allegations of the complaint, which we accept as true for the purposes of the demurrer.8 FACTUAL AND PROCED URAL BACKGROUND

A. The Complaint

1. Introductory Allegations

Plaintiff has passed the parts of the Calif ornia Subject Examinations For Teachers that qualify him to teach “foundational math” in public school; he also has “a current 30- day emergency substitute pe rmit issued by the Califor nia Commission on Teacher Credentialing.” He is on the Los Alamitos Un ified School District’s list of free-lance tutors and prior to May 2012 (the date th e complaint was filed) worked for various approved SES providers. In May 2012, plain tiff worked for a tuto ring company that was not an approved SES provider. Plaintiff’s tuto ring method is to work with the studentclient’s regular school program materials. Plaintiff analyzes the student’s homework as well as quiz and exam results to determine wh at the student does not understand; plaintiff helps the student to understand what they n eed to know to do their homework, quizzes and exams and answers their questions. In March 2010 and March 2011, plaintiff s ubmitted applications to be added to the state’s list of approved SES providers. The complaint does not include a copy of either application, but alleges that the applications indicated plaintiff was a sole proprietor with no employees and that he intended to person ally provide SES services. Attached as Exhibits A and B to the compla int are letters from the Departme nt notifying plaintiff that his applications were incomplete. 4 Plaintiff’s applications we re found incomplete for the

4 Exhibit A, a letter dated April 13, 2 010, states that plai ntiff’s March 2010 application was incomplete because it “[d]id not submit sufficient supporting documentation, e.g., lack of proof of being legally co nstituted and qualified to do business in California and/or being fiscally so und to operate as a pr ovider.” In a letter dated May 26, 2010, the Department of Educa tion provided plaintiff with “a copy of the screening checklist” for plainti ff’s March 2010 application. According to the checklist, plaintiff’s application omitted: (1) three le tters of reference from previous clients; (2) evidence that plainti ff was legally constituted and qualified to do business in California; (3) evidence that plaintiff was “fiscally sound,” including proof of financial9 following reasons: (1) plaintiff had not run a tutoring business for the two years before making his application a nd did not produce a statistical a ssessment demonstrating that his program had resulted in improved academic pr oficiency; (2) plaintiff did not submit five letters of recommendation or references; (3) plaintiff was a sole proprietor and not a business entity; and (4) plaintiff did not show that he was financially sound. The complaint alleges that these requirements were unreasonable and conflicted with the federal regulations. 5 The complaint alleges that rejec ting plaintiff’s application because it did not comply with the st ate’s unreasonable requirements constitutes interference with his fundamental right to pursue his prof ession as a tutor, infringes on his First Amendment right to free speech and violat es his right to due process and equal protection. No compelling state interest ju stified defendants’ refusal to accept his application. Plaintiff has suffered economic harm as a result of not having his name included on the list of approved SES providers. The complaint also challenges the methodolog y defendants use to comply with the NCLB requirement that the various states mu st annually assess SES providers to assure

that their services are contri buting to improved st udent academic proficiency. It also

resources to operate as an SES provider for six months, proof of financial viability, and organizational budgets identifying all sources of revenue. Exhibit B, a letter dated April 18, 2011, states that plaintiff’s March 2011 application was incomplete for the same reason his 2010 applica tion had been found incomp lete, plus two additional reasons: (1) the application did not address four required elemen ts in the narrative; (2) the application did not in clude a completed Template for Quality Verification of Testing Instrument. Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in its construction of the exhibits attached to the complaint. The trial c ourt’s interpretation is not bi nding on us in reviewing a demurrer. We consider the exhibits in light of the rule that facts set forth in exhibits attached to a complaint ar e accepted as true and give n precedence over contrary allegations in the pleading. ( Dodd v. Citizens Bank of Costa Mesa (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1624, 1627.)

5 There is no allegation that the Bo ard failed to abide by the procedural requirements set forth in the Government Co de for adopting rules and regulations to implement state statutes.10 alleges defendants are conspiri ng to sabotage California’s pub lic education system so as to further the agenda of the pr oponents of charter schools.

2. The Causes of Action

The first cause of action is brought expre ssly as a civil rights action under Title 42

of the United States Code section 1983. It alleges that defendants’ refusal to accept plaintiff’s applications and to allow plaintiff to appeal that decision, violates plaintiff’s federal constitutional right to free speech and to work as an approv ed SES provider. The second cause of action alleges defendants’ cond uct violates plaintiff’s constitutional right to “speech” as a tuto r/speaker under the federal and California constitutions. The third cause of action alleges defendants’ conduct vi olates plaintiff’s constitutional “rights to

work” as a tutor. The fourth cause of action alleges that the manner in which defendants’ have selected SES providers has resulted in state funds being wasted on low quality SES

in violation of Code of Civil Procedure se ction 526a (government waste); plaintiff has suffered “a direct pocketbook injury” as a result of defendants’ refusal to add plaintiff to the list of approved providers. The seventh cause of action for unfair competition alleges defendant’s policies and regulations that pr event plaintiff from becoming an approved SES provider constitute unreas onable, unlawful and fraudulent business practices.

3. The Prayer For Relief

On the first, second, third and fourth ca uses of action, plaintiff seeks an order requiring defendants to accept plaintiff’s 2010 and 2011 applications, eliminate the requirement that applicants demonstrate the past success of their tutoring program and eliminate the requirement that applicants provide five letters of recommendation. On the first, second and third causes of action, plaintiff also seeks “incidental monetary damages,” plus additional sums. Plainti ff also seeks the following declarations: (1) California’s criteria for not accepting plaintiff’s applications are invalid; (2) California’s method of testing for student improvement is invalid; (3) defendants are incompetent; (4) California’s SES program is not serving its statutory purpose and the11 tutoring services curre ntly available are of low quality; and (5) the rule precluding use of students’ regular quizzes and tests to assess st udent needs is contrary to NCLB policy.

B. The Demurrer

Defendants demurred to the complaint on mul tiple grounds including that plaintiff lacked standing, the challenged regulations were enacted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, plaintiff’s claims fail to stat e a cause of action, defendants are immune from liability and each cause of action is unc ertain. Plaintiff opposed the demurrer. At the September 11, 2012 hearing on th e demurrer, the trial court observed that Exhibits A and B to the compla int establish that plaintiff di d not complete the application to become an approved SES provider. Plaintiff did not dispute that his application omitted the items noted in Exhibits A and B, but argued that it was unreasonable for the state to require those items. Unconvinced, th e trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, adopting its 11-page written tentative as its final ruling. The written ruling first cites Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. (1978) 436 U.S. 658, 659, in support of the finding that the Department and Board we re local government ag encies which did not have absolute immunity from section 19 83. However, the trial court found the challenged actions of those agencies upon wh ich section 1983 liability was premised – rejecting plaintiff’s applications as incomplete for the reasons stated in Exhibits A and B to the complaint – did not violat e section 1983. Second, citing Will v. Michigan Dept. of

State Police (1989) 491 U.S. 58, 66, the trial c ourt found that plai ntiff’s section 1983 claims against the Department and Board we re barred by the Elev enth Amendment. Third, regarding the defendants sued in th eir individual capacities, the trial court concluded that it was unnecessary to determin e whether they were subject to qualified immunity because the facts alleged did not s how that their conduct violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Fourth, citing Alliance for Children, Inc. v. City of Detroit Pub.

Schs. (E.D. Mich. 2007) 475 F. Supp.2d 655, 661-662 ( Alliance ) and Fresh Start Academy v. Toledo Board of Education (N.D. Ohio 2005) 363 F.Supp.2d 910, 914 ( Fresh

Start ), the trial court concluded that NCLB does not create a private right of action in12 SES providers. Notice of Entry of Dismissal was served and filed on October 3, 2012. Plaintiff timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

A. NCLB Does Not Create A Private Ri ght of Action In SES Providers

Plaintiff challenges the trial court’s c onclusion that NCLB does not provide a private right of action. He argues: (1) NC LB and the related federal regulations provide plaintiff with enforceable rights; and (2) whet her NCLB provides a private right of action

is not relevant because his claims are base d on violations of his federal and state constitutional rights, not on vi olations of NCLB. We conc lude that the gravamen of plaintiff’s claims are that the manner in which defendants have developed rules and regulations to implement th e SES provisions of NCLB violate plaintiff’s alleged constitutional right to speak and work as an approved SE S provider. However, because NCLB does not provide potential SES providers with a private right of action, plaintiff

has failed to state a cause of action under the statute. Although neither the Ninth Circuit nor Calif ornia state courts have addressed the issue, federal district courts in other circuits have held there is no private right of action under NCLB. For example, the plaintiff in Ass’n of Cmty. Org. for Reform Now v. New York City Dep’t of Education (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 269 F.Supp.2d 338 ( Association ) alleged, among other things, that the defe ndants deprived students of th eir right to receive SES. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that Congress “did not intend to create individually enforceable right s with respect to . . . [the] SES provisions contained in the NCLBA.” ( Id . at p. 344.) The Association court analogized NCLB to the Family Educational Rights And Privac y Act of 1974, which the United States Supreme Court in Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe (2002) 536 U.S. 273, 280, held could not be

enforced with a section 1983 action because it did not create any personally enforceable rights. First, the New York court reasone d, NCLB does not cont ain “rights-creating” language. ( Association at p. 344.) When the statutory language “focuses on the entity to13 be regulated, and the benefit to be conferred on an individual is a secondary consideration that flows from that regula tion, Congress has not chosen to create the sort of ‘ individual

entitlement ’ that characterizes an unambiguous in tention to create personal rights. [Citation.]” ( Id . at p. 345.) Second, the SES provis ions “have an aggregate focus, and are not concerned with a particular student’s ability to receive a benefit under the statute. For example, [the SES] provisions give prior ity for receiving those benefits to children from low-income families. [Cita tions.] This indicates that Congress was concerned with improving the educational conditions of child ren as a whole, and specifically, the

condition of the subset of child ren from lower income families, rather than ensuring that each individual child was provided with . . . a right to receive SES.” ( Association at p. 345.) Third, the enforcem ent mechanisms contained with in NCLB (e.g. the Secretary of Education may withhold funds until the stat e has fulfilled its obligations under NCLB (20 U.S.C. § 6311(g)(2)), or it may conduct proceedings for the recovery of funds from

the state and for the issuance of cease a nd desist orders (20 U.S.C. §§ 1234(a)-(i)), support the conclusion that Congress did not intend to create individual rights. ( Id . at pp. 342, 345-346.)

The Ohio federal district court came to the same conclusion in Fresh Start, supra
, 363 F.Supp.2d 910. In that cas e, the plaintiff alleged it wa s a “state-approve d provider of SES,” that it had applied to the Toledo Bo ard to receive NCLB funds for providing tutoring services, but that the Toledo Board blocked Fresh Start from receiving funds and students. ( Id . at p. 912.) The Fresh Start court observed that NCLB provides no procedures for individual entities to enforce its requirements. ( Id . at p. 914.) And that only a violation of rights, not laws, give rise to a section 1983 action. ( Ibid .) Relying on Gonzaga, supra , and Association, supra , the Fresh Start court concluded that SES providers “may not bring an action under sec tion 1983 or under an implied private right of action to enforce any provisions of [NCLB], as the Act does not evince an unambiguous congressional intent to create rights enforceable by such individuals.” ( Fresh Start at p. 916.)14 In Alliance, supra , 475 F.Supp.2d 655, th e Michigan federal di strict court agreed

with the New York and Ohio fede ral courts. The plaintiff in Alliance provided tutoring

services. It sued the school district fo r wrongfully removing it from the approved SES provider list. Adopting the r easoning of the earlier courts, Alliance concluded that NCLB did not create a right in SES providers to enfo rce claims against the school district. ( Id

. at pp. 658-661.) We find the reasoning in Association , Fresh Start and Alliance persuasive and adopt it here. NCLB does not create a ri ght in SES providers, or prospective SES providers, to enforce claims against the state, state agen cies or state officials for withholding approval. Since th e gravamen of each cause of action is that plaintiff was damaged by defendants’ alleged violation of NCLB, each cause of action necessarily fails to state a cause of action. Accordingly, de fendants’ demurrer to each cause of action was properly granted wit hout leave to amend.

B. Defendants Are Immune From § 1983 Liability

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims are not derived from NCLB, defe ndants are immune from liability under

section 1983. The trial court made two se emingly inconsistent conclusions regarding immunity: (1) under Monell, supra , 436 U.S. 658, the defendants are local government agencies, and agents thereof, all with qualified immunity from section 1983 liability, but their challenged actions did not violate a ny of plaintiff’s cons titutional rights; and (2) under Will, supra , 491 U.S. 58, and the Eleventh Amendment, the defendants are state agencies, and agents thereo f, with absolute immunity from section 1983 liability. Plaintiff challenges both findings. We concl ude that the Board and the Department are state governmental agencies and the individual defendants are agents of the state sued in their official capacities. As such, defendant s are immune from liability for plaintiff’s

section 1983 claims. A section 1983 suit is the vehicle by wh ich an individual’s federal constitutional rights are enforced. (See McAllister v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2013)15 216 Cal.App.4th 1198, 1207 [§ 1983 afford s a method for “vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred,” but does not create subs tantive rights].) Section 1983 provides: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Co lumbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other pe rson within the jurisd iction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or im munities secured by th e Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party in jured in an action at law, su it in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .” Here, althou gh only the first cause of action is expressly brought pursuant to section 1983, the second and third causes of action are implicitly brought pursuant to that statute as well. For example, paragraph 125 of the complaint

asserts that the second cause of action states “essentially ” the same claims as the first cause of action, but is limited to only a viol ation of plaintiff’s “rights of ‘speech’ as tutors/speakers . . . under the SES provisions of the federal NCLB.” Likewise, paragraph 136 of the complaint asserts th at the third cause of action states “essentially” the same clams as the first cause of action, but is lim ited to only a viola tion of the plaintiff’s “right[] to work . . . as a tu tor . . . .” Thus, the first, second and third causes of action, which all claim violations of plaintiff’s federal rights, are section 1983 claims.

“The ‘two essential elemen ts’ to a claim under secti on 1983 are ‘(1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct depriv ed a person of rights, privileg es, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.’ ( Parratt v. Taylor (1981) 451 U.S. 527, 535 [].)” 6 ( Irwin v. City of Hemet (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 507, 516, italics added.) Local governmental bodies are considered “perso ns” subject to suit under section 1983. ( Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore Unified School District (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1101, citing Monell, supra , 436 U.S. at pp. 690-691.) Bu t the Eleventh Amendment makes states and state agents immune from suit unde r section 1983 in both federal and state court. ( Kirchmann at p. 1101, citing Will, supra , 491 U.S. at pp. 690-691.) In

6 Parratt was overruled on unrelated ground in Davids v. Williams (1986) 474 U.S. 327, 330-331.16 Kirchmann , the court held that California school districts are arms of the state for purposes of section 1983 immunity. ( Kirchmann at p. 1115.) In addition, state officers “sued in their official capacity are not co nsidered persons unde r section 1983 and are immune from liability under the statute by vi rtue of the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of sovereign imm unity. [Citations.]” ( Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 829.) A plaintiff cannot ci rcumvent this immunity by suing a state official in his or her individual capacity for acts that were undertaken by the official in his or her official capacity. ( McAllister, supra , 216 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1207-1208.) Here, the Department and Board are indisput ably state agencies. As such, they are

immune from suit under section 1983. Each of the individual defendants is also immune

because each is a state officer and the complaint does not include any factual allegations that any individual was acting in other than hi s or her official capacity in developing the challenged criteria for approving SES providers, and in applying thos e criteria to reject plaintiff’s application as inco mplete. For these reasons, plaintiff cannot state a cause of

action under section 1983 and the trial cour t did not err in sustaining defendants’

demurrer without leave to amend to the first, second and third causes of action, each of

which is based on s ection 1983 liability.

Plaintiff’s reliance on Moor v. County of Alameda (1973) 411 U.S. 693 ( Moor ), for a contrary result is mispl aced. The issue in that case was whether the county was a person under section 1983. He re, the defendants are state agencies and representatives thereof, not a county or other local governmental agency.

C. The Complaint Does Not State A Cause of Action Under State Law

Plaintiff contends that even if there is no liability under section 1983 and NCLB,

he nevertheless stated a cause of action under state law and the California Constitution. Assuming, for the sake of argum ent, that plaintiff’s state claims are not based on NCLB, he has failed to state cognizable claims unde r either the Constitution or other state laws. The gravamen of the allegations in the s econd and third causes of action is that, by not approving his a pplication to become an SES provider, defendant s violated plaintiff’s17 right to speech and to work as a tutor under various sections of Article 1, of the California Constitution. But, plaintiff has no cons titutional right to beco me an approved SES provider. (See Landau v. Superior Court (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 191, 208[“There is no fundamental constitutional right to work for, or to have continued employment with, a particular public or private em ployer.”].) Thus, the complain t fails to state a cause of action for violation of plainti ff’s state constitutional rights. Nor does plaintiff show how the complain t states a cause of action under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.). Government Code section 815.2 (§ 815.2) provides: “(a) A public entity is liable for in jury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the pub lic entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative. [¶] (b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of an empl oyee of the public entity where the employee is immune from liability.”

Here, defendants’ acts and omissions challeng ed by the complaint are the development of criteria to implement NCLB, and the application of those criteria so as to find plaintiff’s SES provider applications incomplete. As we have already explained, such acts and omissions do not give rise to any cause of action against the individual defendants.

Plaintiff’s reliance on Elson v. Public Utilities Commission (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 577 ( Elson ), for the proposition that the approv al process for SES applications was ministerial and not discretionary, is misplaced. Discerning the nature of the state’s duties under NCLB is a matter of statutory construction. ( Coachella, supra , 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 113.) “A ministerial act is one that a public functionary is required to perform in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, with out regard to his or her own judgment or opinion concerning the propriety of such act. [Citation.]” ( Ibid
., internal quotations omitted.) In Elson , the court held that the commission’s duty to prevent a bus company from op erating without statutorily required insurance was not discretionary. Elson is inapposite. The decision whethe r to approve an SES provider18 application, including whether the applica tion is complete, is discretionary. (Cf. Colome

v. State Athletic Comm’n (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1454 [requirement that boxer undergo neurological exam is mandatory upon boxer, deci sion whether to issue the boxing license is discreti onary with the Commission].) 7

D. The Trial Court Did Not Err In Finding the Reasons Defendants Rejected Plaintiff’s Applications Were Se t Forth In Exhibits A and B

The trial court stated that the letters fro m the Department rejecting plaintiff’s 2010 and 2011 applications (Exhibits A and B to the complaint) “estab lish that Defendants’ rejection of Plaintiff’s two SE S Applications was based on Pl aintiff’s failure to comply with the requirements for submitting the applic ations, and were not based on Defendants’ violation of Plaintiff’s rights. ” Plaintiff challenges this ruling, arguing that the letters

show the reasons defendants contend they rejected plaintiff’s applications, but not the

true reasons. The flaw in plaintiff’s argument is twofol d. First, nowhere does plaintiff explain

what he believes defendants’ true reasons for rejecting his applicati on were, or how those reasons violated his rights. Thus, he has not shown how this finding was prejudicial. Second, nowhere in the complaint does plaintiff allege that his applications were rejected

for other than the stated reasons. On th e contrary, the complaint alleges that his applications were rejected as incomplete for the stated re asons, but that those reasons were “invalid, arbitrary, and even unlawful reasons because they violated his rights.” Even at the hearing on the demurrer, plaintiff did not dispute that his application was found incomplete for the reasons stated in Exhibits A and B; he argued only that it was unreasonable for defendants to require the om itted items. Thus, the gist of plaintiff’s

claims is not that defendants offered sham reasons for finding his application incomplete;

7 Plaintiff alleges in his first amended complaint that the relevant parts of the Administrative Code are “underground regulations” and hence invalid. ( California Advocates for Nu rsing Home Reform v. Bonta (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 498, 506.) On appeal, plaintiff does not develop that argument and we deem it waived. ( Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App. 4th 68, 106.)19 rather, it is that the requirement that plain tiff include the omitted ite ms in his application is unreasonable. On this record, we find no error in the trial court’s finding that the reasons defendants rejected plaintiff’s applica tions were those set forth in Exhibits A and

B. As to plaintiff’s argument that the SE S provider applicati on requirements were unreasonable, our review of the federal regula tions and the administrative code, in light of the NCLB, convinces us that the requirements for appointm ent as an SES provider are

reasonable. Plaintiff has failed to demonstr ate that the items requi red on the application were arbitrary or unrelated to the success of the NCLB.

E. The Complaint Does Not State A Cause of Action For “Government Waste”

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the fourth cause of action, captioned “Government Waste” and expressly brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 526a, is not based on NCLB, we fi nd it fails to state a cause of action. Code of Civil Procedure section 526a prov ides that an action may be maintained against any “county, town , city or city and county of the state” or “against any officer thereof, or any agent, or othe r person, acting in its behalf,” to restrain and prevent “any illegal expenditure of, waste of, or injury to, the estate, funds, or other property of a county, town, city or city and county of the state.” Although the statute refers to local governments, suit may also be brought ag ainst a state agency or officer. ( Cates v. California Gambling Control Com. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1308 ( Cates ); California Assn. for Safety Education v. Brown (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1281.)

In Chiatello v. City and County of San Francisco (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 472, 482, the court explained: “Just what amount s to ‘waste’ is more readily intuited than

enunciated. It has been described as ‘a usel ess expenditure . . . of public funds’ that is incapable of achieving the ostensible goal. [C itation.] Certainly it reaches outright fraud, corruption, or collusion. [Cita tions.] Even when ‘ “done in the exercise of a lawful power,” ’ public spending may qualify as wa ste if it is ‘ “completely unnecessary,” ’ or ‘ “useless,” ’ or ‘provides no public benefit.’ [Citations.] Waste is money that is20 squandered, or money th at is left uncollected, and thus is a constitutionally prohibited gift of public resources. [Citations.] Waste can exist ev en when there is no net loss, as when ‘illegal procedures actually permit a saving of tax funds.’ [Citation.] [¶] Waste does not encompass the great majority of governmental outlays of m oney or the time of salaried governmental employees, nor does it apply to th e vast majority of discretionary decisions made by state and local units of government: ‘ “[T]he term ‘waste’ as used in section 526a means something more than an alle ged mistake by public officials in matters involving the exercise of judgment or wide di scretion. To hold otherwise would invite constant harassment of city and county officers by disg runtled citizens and could seriously hamper our representative government at the local level. Thus, the courts should not take judicial cogniz ance of disputes which are primarily political in nature, nor should they attempt to enjoin every expenditure that does not meet with a taxpayer’s approval.” ’ [Citations.]” Here, the waste alleged in the fourth cause of action is the money spent by California school districts on “extremely ‘low quality’ and utterly ‘ineffective’ SES tutoring services.” Accordi ng to the complaint, “Such mone y should not be so clearly and utterly wasted as it is, and such waste ca n be enjoined under California Code of Civil Procedure [section] 526a, and by simply or dering that the named defendants cease and desist in applying such unlawful and unreasona ble regulations (criteria) as they are [as alleged elsewhere in the comp laint], and so that people as well qualified, even ‘highly qualified’ to serve as SES tutors – such as plaintiff – can rightly be ‘approved’ as SES providers.” Thus, the fourth cause of action challenges defendants’ exercise of judgment in exercising its duty to craft rules and regu lations to implement the SES provisions of NCLB, and their exercise of discretion in applying those rules and regulations to plaintiff’s and others’ appli cations to become approved SE S providers. The complaint does not allege that state expenditures for SES services are unnecessary. On the contrary, the complaint recognizes the ne cessity of those expenditures, but maintains that plaintiff should be one of the recipien ts of the money being spent. These allegations focus on discretionary acts pursuant to statutes and regul ations and are insufficient to state a cause21 of action to enjoin government waste. As such, the trial court pr operly sustained the

demurrer to the fourth cause of action without leave to amend.

F. The Complaint Does Not State A Caus e of Action For Unfair Competition

Even assuming, for the sake of argumen t, that the seventh cause of action, captioned “Unfair Competition” and brought under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) (§ 17200 ), is not based on NCLB, we find it fails to

state a cause of action.

Section 17200 defines unfai r competition as “any unlawfu l, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading adve rtising . . . .” The

UCL establishes three varieties of unfair competition – acts or practices which are unlawful, unfair or deceptive. ( Drum v. San Fernando Valley Bar Ass’n (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 247, 253, citing Cel-Tech Communications, In c. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163 .) “An ‘unlawful busi ness activity’ includes ‘anything that can properly be called a busin ess practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.’ [Citation.]” ( People v. McKale (1979) 25 Cal.3d 626, 632.) “To

sustain a UCL cause of action based on such fraudulent or deceptive practices, a plaintiff must show that ‘ “ ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’ ” ’ [Citations.]” ( Weinstat v. Dentsply Internat., Inc. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1213 , 1223, fn. 8.) The test for whether a business practice is unfair depends on whether the plainti ff is a competitor of the defendant, or a consume r. In this case, the competito r test is more applicable because the gist of plainti ff’s claim is that the defenda nts allowed other less qualified

tutors to be added to the a pproved SES provider list. “I n competitor cases, a business practice is ‘unfair’ only if it ‘threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.’ [Citation.] If ‘t he conduct is deemed reasona ble and condoned under the antitrust laws,’ there is no violati on of the UCL. [Citations.]” ( Drum, supra , at p. 254.)22 The business practice challenge d by plaintiff is “the conc octing of such unlawful and unreasonable regulations and policies [as alleged elsewhere in the complaint] as were even enforced up on [plaintiff] . . . and making it ab surdly and unlawfully impossible for someone like [plaintiff] (not having run a tuto ring business in the pa st, yet being a very experienced and capable tutor) to even be ‘approved’ as an SES tutoring services provider in California.” Paragraph 177 alle ges that defendants are motivated by a desire to sabotage the public in order to promot e charter schools. These allegations which essentially chastise the State of California fo r enacting unworthy regula tions do not allege any unlawful, unfair or deceptive business prac tices under Business a nd Professions Code section 17200. Accordingly, the trial c ourt properly sustained the demurrer to the

seventh cause of action without leave to amend.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

RUBIN, ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR:

FLIER, J.

GRIMES, J.