N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R YAN C LIFFORD, 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. 12-16255 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-02935-JAM GGH 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 J ohn A. M e nde z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 22, 2014 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, C ANB Y, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s . R y an C lifford a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging fe de ra l a nd sta te la w viola tions a rising from his pa rtic ipation in his c olle ge fra te rnity ’ s ple d g e a c tivitie s. W e have jurisdic tion 

# F IL ED AUG 01 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. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo. Stanle y v . Trs. of C

a l. State Univ . , 433 F.3d 1129, 1136 (9th C ir. 2006) (sta tute of lim ita

tions); Le ev . C

ity of Los Ange le s , 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th C ir. 2001) (dismissa l for fa ilure to sta te a c la im ). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d C lifford’ s Title IX c la im a ga inst de fe nda nts a nd his § 1983 e qua l prote c t ion a nd First Am e ndm e nt re t a lia tion c la im s a ga inst de fe nda

nt C ody be c a use the sta

tute of lim i tations ha d run be fore C lifford file d his c om p la i nt. Se eC a l. C iv. Proc . C ode § 335.1 (se tting forth a pplic a ble sta tute of lim ita

tions for pe rsona l injury

c la i m s); C

olony C ov eProps., LLC

v . C ity Of C a rson , 640 F.3d 948, 956 (9th C ir. 2011) (for § 1983 c la im s, the c ourt a pplie s the forum sta te ’ s sta tute of lim i tations for pe rsona l injury c la im s); Stanle

y , 433 F.3d at 1136-37 (sa

m e for Title IX c la im s). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d C lifford’ s § 1983 c la im s a ga inst de fe nda nt Grissom be c a

use C lifford fa i le d to a lle g e fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t Grissom tre ate d C lifford diffe re ntly be c a use of se x or tha

t Grissom took a c tion a ga inst C lifford be c a

use of his prote c te d a c tivity . Se ePinard v . C latsk a nieSc h. Dist. , 467 F.3d 755, 770 (9th C ir. 2006) (e le m e nts of a First Am e ndm e nt re ta lia tion c la im ); Flore

s v . Morgan Hill Unifie

d Sc h. Dist. , 324 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th C ir. 2003) (e le m e nts of a n e qua l prote c t ion c la im ). 1 2 - 1 6 2 5 5

2The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d C lifford’ s C a l. C iv. C ode § 52.1 c la i m a ga inst theUnive rsity

be c a use C lifford fa ile d to a lle ge thre ats, intim idat ion, or c oe rc ion by

any Unive rsity

re pre se ntative . Se eVe ne gas v . C o unty of Los Ange le

s , 87 P.3d 1, 14 (C a l. 2004) (“ C ivil C ode se c tion 52.1 doe s not e xte nd to a ll ordina ry tort a c t ions be c a

use its provisions a

re lim ite d to thre ats, intim idation, or c oe rc ion that inte rfe re s with a

c o nstitutiona

l or sta tutory right.” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d C lifford’ s ne glige nc e and inte ntiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss c la im s be c a use de fe nda

nts a re ge ne ra lly

im m une from tort suits a

rising from

a c ts or om issions of the

e ntity or its e m ploy e e s. Se e C a l. Gov. C ode § 815(a ) (c onfe rring im m unity upon publice ntitie s ); id. § 820.2 (c onfe rring im

m unity upon publice m

ploy e e s). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

dism i ssing C lifford’ s c la im s without le ave to a

m e nd be c a

use C lifford c annot c orre c t the de fe c ts in his c om pla i nt. Se eLope

z v . Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba nc ) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re vie wand e xpla ining tha t le ave to a

m e nd should be give n unle ss the de fic ie nc ie s in thec om pla int c annot be c ure d by am e ndm e nt). W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs de ny ing C lifford’ s post-judgm e nt m otions for re l ie f from judgm e nt be c a

use C lifford fa i le d to filean am e nde d or se pa

rate notic e of a

ppe a l. Se eW

h itak e r v . Garc e t ti , 486 F.3d 572, 585 1 2 - 1 6 2 5 5 3(9th C ir. 2007).

W e re je c t C lifford’ s c onte ntion tha t the distric t c ourt judgewa s bia se d a ga inst him . C lifford’ s re que st for judic ia l notic e , file d on Fe brua ry 7, 2013, is denie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 6 2 5 5 4