JAMES E. ROSS, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

Plaintiff, 

6: 14-cv-1235-TC 

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION 

v. 

LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, 

Defendant. 

COFFIN, Magistrate Judge: 

Pro se plaintiff, James Ross, instituted this action on January 22, 2014 in Nevada against 

Lane Community College. Upon seeking to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), the Nevada District 

Court reviewed the complaint and found it deficient in that it failed to properly allege a violation of 

the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States and thus failed to plead jurisdiction. 1 

Moreover, the court determined that plaintiff had not set forth 

any specific claims or facts. He simply declares that he is entitled to $13 million in 

damages because Lane Community College "attempted to have him arrested" prior 

to registration for classes. Because Plaintiff has not identified any claims he seeks to 

pursue or factual support for any claims, including the identity of those involved and 

the date upon which the alleged incident occurs, the complaint must be dismisse.d. 

The dismissal will be without prejudice to Plaintiff amending his complaint to 

1

The court also found insufficient pleading to support diversity jurisdiction. 

Page 1 -FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION 

Case 6:14-cv-01235-TC Document 32 Filed 08/03/14 Page 1 of 5
include specific claims for relief and sufficient factual allegations to support his 

claims. 

Order dated January 28, 2014 (#2). 

that: 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 3 0, 20 14. The court again dismissed finding 

The amended complaint is a scant 5 sentences and indicates Plaintiffs desire to 

obtain his transcripts and $13 million dollars in damages from Lane Community 

College in Eugene, Oregon. Plaintiff claims that he was "a victim of harassment [] 

from the first day ofregistration [] until the last day of classes." There is no factual 

support for this conclusory allegation. He also claims that he was discriminated 

against. There is no factual support for this claim either. As before, Plaintiff has not 

specifically identified any claims or set forth factual support for any claims. The 

Court will grant Plaintiff another opportunity to amend his complaint to make 

specific claims and factual allegations. 

Order dated February 11, 2014 (#9). 

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on February 12, 2014, third amended complaint 

on February 14,2014, and a "creative writing sample" onFebruary20, 2014. OnFebruary25, 2014, 

the Nevada court ordered the creative writing sample stricken. On May 19, 2014, plaintiff submitted 

a fourth amended complaint. On July 31, 2014, the Nevada court transferred the action to this court 

because while it found the operative complaint to allege diversity jurisdiction, it failed to allege that 

Nevada had jurisdiction over Lane Community College or that venue in Nevada was inappropriate. 

Order dated July 31,2014 (#29). The Nevada court declined to address the merits ofthe Fourth 

Amended Complaint and whether it properly alleged any claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The Nevada court's orders make clear that plaintiff has been advised of the necessity to 

provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing that he is entitled to relief and that he must 

plead more than labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. 

The operative complaint alleges the following: 

Page 2 - FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION 

Case 6:14-cv-01235-TC Document 32 Filed 08/03/14 Page 2 of 5
On the morning of September 7, 2012, after 7 am, an agent ofLCC followed 

me around and questioned me hastily (sic). The Sheriffs office responded to his 

call, the first day of registration for the fall, quarter. The police investigation 

concluded that security officers did not have the right to block plaintiffs educational 

goals. In the town of Eugene, a very small portion of the population is African 

American is why plaintiff was greeted with great hostility. Plaintiffbelieves this is 

the reason why his harassment was condoned by school officialdom. 

They created an atmosphere of fear for the plaintiffby continued surveillance, 

and asked to do impossible tasks, and tried in school tribunals for violations that 

never occurred. LCC President Mary Spilde, is the chief agent for Lane Community 

College .... 

The vetran's (sic) rep at PCC, refused to certify me for another term, without 

a transcript from Lane. This was part of the reason why I lost funding from VRAP 

and the Department ofvetran's (sic) affairs. 

Fourth Amended Complaint (#23) at p. 1. Plaintiff seeks, through this action, his transcript and 

$13,000,000. Specifically, plaintiff asserts: 

As an artist, the plaintiff will earn such compensation for his craft. Producing stories 

from life experienced and the power of the creative mind. Intellectual Property being 

delayed is the reason for the lawsuit. 

Id. at p. 2. 

Although it is possible to conceive an action under section 1983 for due process or equal 

protection violations,2 the complaint fails to allege sufficient factual support to make such claims 

plausible. Indeed, plaintiff even fails to allege even any conclusory allegations of violation of any 

specific right including equal protection or due process. Moreover, there is no factual basis alleged 

connecting his purported right to some unidentified intellectual property to some lack of required 

process. 

To prevail on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show: (1) the deprivation of 

2

While a claim for a hostile environment is possible under Title IX in the education 

environment,~ Chancellor v. Pottsgrove Sch. Dist., 501 F.Supp.2d 695, 704 (E.D.Pa.2007), 

such claim cannot be premised on the basis of race. See 28 U.S. C. § 1681(a) (prohibits 

discrimination on the basis of sex only), See also Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. ofEduc., 544 U.S. 

167, 173 (2005). 

Page 3 -FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION 

Case 6:14-cv-01235-TC Document 32 Filed 08/03/14 Page 3 of 5
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws; (2) by a person acting 

under the color of state law. 42 U.S. C. § 1983. "Section 1983 itself creates no substantive rights; it 

provides only a procedure for redress for the deprivation of rights established elsewhere." Sykes v. 

James, 13 F.3d 515, 519 (2d Cir. 1993). As noted above, it is possible to conceive a due process or 

equal protection violation is asserted, but such claims are not _plausible. 

To make out a substantive due process claim, plaintiff must demonstrate a violation of a 

liberty or property interest protected by the Due Process Clause. It is ·well-settled, however, that 

education is not among the rights afforded explicit protection under our Federal Constitution, and 

thus, the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect a public education as a substantive fundamental 

right. San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973). Further, there appears to 

be no constitutionally protected right to a transcript. See Rafano v. Patchogue-Medford Schoo 1 Dist., 

2009 WL 789440 at * 8 (E.D.N.Y. March 20, 2009) (no law supporting right to an accurate 

transcript). In addition, plaintiff fails to allege what process was given or denied that allegedly 

resulted in the denial of any property interest, protected or not, or how such failure of process 

resulted from a custom or policy of Lane Community College. 

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects members of a suspect 

class from being treated differently than others similarly situated. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne 

Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). Plaintiff fails to allege a sufficient factual basis 

demonstrating such treatment. 

Moreover, section 1983 does not impose liability under a respondeat superior, Monell v. 

Department of Social Services of City ofNew York, 436 U.S. 658,691 (1978), but plaintiff only 

names Lane Community College as defendant and does not allege any deprivation as a result of the 

schools' custom or policy. 

Page 4- FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION 

Case 6:14-cv-01235-TC Document 32 Filed 08/03/14 Page 4 of 5
Plaintiff has been advised of the deficiencies regarding the factual basis needed to plead a 

cause of action twice and has had an opportunity to amend four times. It is clear that any further 

attempts at amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the complaint should now be dismissed 

without leave to amend. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit 

Court of appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(l), Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment or appealable order. The 

parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation 

within which to file specific written objections with the court. Thereafter, the parties shall have 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections 

to any factual determination of the Magistrate Judge will be considered as a waiver of a party's right 

to de novo consideration of the factual issues and will constitute a waiver of a party's right to 

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to this 

recommendation. 

DATED this -:;;;;I'-- day of~~r. 

Page 5 - FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION 

Case 6:14-cv-01235-TC Document 32 Filed 08/03/14 Page 5 of 5