N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
HOWARD ALAN ZOC H LINSKI, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVER SITY OF C ALIFOR

NIA; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-15120 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-01824-KJM -JFM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Kim be rly J. M ue lle r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 **
B e fore : C LIFTON, N.R . SM ITH, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Howa rd Ala n Zoc hlinski a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging fe de ra l a nd sta te la w c la im s a

rising 

# FIL ED JUN 10 2014 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt, a

nd, the re fore , de nie s pla i ntiff’ s re que st for ora l a rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).from

a c onspira c y

to sla nde r him a fte r he wa s disqua l ifie d from a gra duate sc hool program . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo a dism issa l for fa ilure to sta t e a c la im , a nd for a n a b use of disc re tion thede nia l of le ave to a m e nd. W ood v . C ity of San Die

go , 678 F.3d 1075, 1080 (9th C i r. 2012). W e a ffirm

in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a nd re m and. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Zoc hlinski’ s §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 a nd 1986 c la i m s a ga inst The R e g e nts of theUnive rsity of C a lifornia , and his da

m a ge s c la im s unde r the se provisions aga inst theindividual de fe nda nts in the ir offic ia l
c a pa c itie s, be c a

use arm s of the sta

te and the ir a ge nts a c ting in the ir offic ia l
c a pa c itie s a re not subje c t to suit unde r those provisions. Se ePittman v . Ore gon Employme nt De

p’t , 509 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th C ir. 2007); Tre r ic ev . Pe de rse n , 769 F.2d 1398, 1403 (9th C ir. 1985) (no § 1986 c a use of a c tion a

bse nt a va lid § 1985
c la im ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Zoc hlinski’ s §§ 1982 a nd 1983
c onspira c y

c la im s a s we ll a s his c la im s unde r TitleII, IV, VI, a nd VII of the C ivil R ights Ac t a g a inst a ll de fe nda nts be c a u se Zoc hlinski faile d to a lle ge fa c ts to support oneor m ore e le m e nt of e a c h c la im
. Se eFrank l in v . Fox , 312 F.3d 423, 441 (9th C i r. 2001) (e l e m e nts of § 1983 c onspira c y c la im ); se ealso 42 U.S.C . § 1982 (c la im

arise s if de fe nda

nt inte rfe re s with plai ntiff’ s right to “ inhe rit, purc ha se ,

2le a se , se ll, hold [or] c onve y ” prope rty ); 42 U.S.C . § 2000a (a ddre ssing

disc rim ination in public

a c c om m odation); id. § 2000c (a ddre ssing de se gre gation in public sc h ools); id. § 2000d (a ddre ssing e xc lusion from e d uc ationa l progra

m s tha t re c e ive fe de ra l a ssista

nc e on the ba sis of ra c e , c o lor, or na tiona l origin); id. § 2000e (a ddre ssing e m

p loy m e nt disc rim ination). Howe v e r, the distric t c ourt e rre d in dismi ssing Zoc hlinski’ s § 1981 e qua l prote c tion c la im a g a inst de fe nda nt John Jone s, a

nd his § 1983 de fam ation plus
c la im a ga inst de fe nda

nts John Oa

kle y and Jone s, to thee x te nt tha t Zoc hlinski
se e k s da m a ge s from

the m in the ir individual c a

pa c itie s , be c a

u se Zoc hlinski alle ge d that de fe n da nt Jone s a c te d with ra c ia l a n im us a ga inst pe ople of Je wish de sc e nt, a nd that both de fe nda

nts de fam e d him

in re ta lia tion for his e xe rc ise of First Am e ndm e nt rights a

nd with disre ga

rd for his right to pursue

his c hose n profe ssion. Se ePittman , 509 F.3d a

t 1071 (§§ 1981 a

nd 1983 da

m a g e s c l a im s c ogniz a

ble
a ga inst publicoffic ia l s in the ir individual c a pa c itie s); He rb Hallman C he v role t, Inc
. v . N ash-Holme

s , 169 F.3d 636, 645 (9th C ir. 1999) (e le m e nts of § 1983 de fam at ion-plus c la im ); se ealso Saint Franc is C o ll v . Al-K

hazraji , 481 U.S. 604, 611-13 (1987) (§ 1981 rac ia l disc rim ination c l a im e nc om pa sse s a nim us a ga inst pe ople of Je w ish de sc e nt, a m o n g othe rs); Gre e nev . Mc Elroy , 360 U.S. 474, 492

3(1959) (noting a n individual ’ s Fifth Am e ndm e nt right to follow a c hose n profe s sion fre e from

unre a sona

ble gove rnm e nta l inte rfe re nc e ). The distric t c ourt a l so e rre d by dism issing a s tim e -barre d Zoc hlinski’ s sta te la w c la im s for de fam ation, inflic tion of e m otiona l distre s s, a nd viola tions of the Unruh C ivil Rights Ac t be c a use Zoc hlinski alle ge s tha t he file d suit within one y e ar a fte r he ha d

re a son to beaware of the a lle ge d sla n de r. De fe nda

nts offe r no pe rsua sive c onflic ting e vide nc e , only c onje c ture . S

e e C a l. C iv. Proc . C ode § 340(c ); J

o lly v . Eli Lilly & C

o. , 751 P.2d 923, 927 (C a l. 1988) (disc ussing de la y e d disc ove ry

rule and a c c rua l of c la im s unde r C a lifornia la w); W o od , 678 F.3d at 1080 (c ourt a c c e pts a s true a ll we ll ple a de d fa c ts); se ealso N

e itzk ev . W illiams , 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) (“ R ule 12(b)(6) doe s not c ounte na nc e [] dism issa ls ba se d on a

judge ’ s disbe lie f of a c om pla int’ s fa c tua l a lle g at ions” ). The distric t c ourt a

b use d its disc re tion by de ny i ng Zoc hlinski le av e to a m e nd
and providefa c tua l spe c ific ity re ga rding his time ly

sta t e la w c la im s , a

nd his §§ 1981 a nd 1983 c la im s for da

m a g e s a ga inst theindividual de fe nda nts. Se e Emine nc eC

apital, LLC

v . Aspe on, Inc
. , 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th C i r. 2003) (listing fa c tors to we igh re ga rding le ave to a

m e nd). Zoc hlinski’ s c onte ntions re ga rding them a g istra

te judge ’ s a

nd the distric t judge ’ s a l le ge d bia s a

re unpe rsua sive
. 4Zoc hlinski’ s re que sts for a ppointm e nt of c ounse l a

nd for a n inve s tiga tion by sta te or fe de ra l prose c utors, se t forth in his brie fs, a re de nie d. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D.

5