A.L. v. Grossmont Union High School District

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 7, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-02281
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 A.L., a minor by and through his Case No. 3:23-cv-02281-BEN-KSC 11 Guardian ad Litem STEPHANIE BURGESS, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART Plaintiff, 13 v. GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION TO 14 GROSSMONT UNION HIGH DISMISS SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public 15 entity; PAUL MEILAHN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, 16 inclusive,

17 Defendants.

19 Currently before the Court is Defendant Grossmont Union School District’s

20 Motion to Dismiss. The District moves to dismiss based on its Eleventh Amendment

21 immunity. The motion is granted except as to the third claim for relief, with leave to

22 amend.

23 INTRODUCTION

24 According to the Complaint, A.L. is a ten-year-old stu dent in the Defendant 25 school district. According to the Complaint, A.L. is a special education student with 26 an Individual Education Plan requiring the District to provide transportation between 27 home and school. According to the Complaint, something happened to A.L. on the 28 bus ride home from school on January 27, 2023. Plaintiff asserts that the bus driver 1 twice angrily used force to push him to a bus seat, from which A.L. suffered

2 defensive wounds to his face and arms. Plaintiff brings twelve claims for relief

3 against the District and its bus driver seeking money damages.

4 DISCUSSION

5 The Eleventh Amendment provides that the “Judicial power of the United

6 States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equ ity, commenced or 7 prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by 8 Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. States are 9 protected from suits brought by citizens in federal court. College Sav. Bank v. 10 Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 669 (1999). In the 11 same way, “agencies of the state are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from 12 private damages or suits for injunctive relief brought in federal court.” Sato v. 13 Orange Cnty. Dep’t of Educ., 861 F.3d 923, 928 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Savage v. 14 Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003)).1 15 The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that in the State of California, a public 16 school district is an arm of the state. “[W]e hold that California school districts . . . 17 remain arms of the state . . . .” Sato, 861 F.3d at 934. Sato notes that “[t]he 18 California Supreme Court has stated that ‘local districts are the State’s agents for 19 local operation of the common school system.’” Id. (citation omitted). Sato 20 explained that under California law, public schooling is a statewide or central 21 government function that is carried out through local school districts as “state agents 22 under state control.” Id. at 933. Here, the District asserts its Eleventh Amendment 23 1 “There are only three exceptions to this general rule. First, a state may waive its 24 Eleventh Amendment defense. Second, Congress may abrogate the States’ 25 sovereign immunity by acting pursuant to a grant of constitutional authority. Third, under the Ex parte Young doctrine, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a ‘suit 26 against a state official when that suit seeks ... prospective injunctive relief.’” 27 Douglas v. California Dep’t of Youth Auth., 271 F.3d 812, 817–18 (9th Cir.), amended, 271 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). 28 1 immunity from suit as to all of Plaintiff’s claims (except the Third claim brought

2 under the Rehabilitation Act).

3 Plaintiff’s first claim for relief under §1983 is barred. “The § 1983 claim

4 seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief is . . . frivolous, its outcome

5 predetermined by a review of relevant law. It is well-established that a school

6 district cannot be sued for damages under §1983.” C.W. v. Ca pistrano Unified Sch. 7 Dist., 784 F.3d 1237, 1247–48 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Belanger v. Madera Unified 8 Sch. Dist., 963 F.2d 248, 254 (9th Cir. 1992)). 9 Plaintiff’s second claim for relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 10 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq., turns on whether Plaintiff specifically asserts a violation 11 of the Fourteenth Amendment that also violates the ADA. “[I]nsofar as Title II [of 12 the ADA] creates a private cause of action for damages against the States for conduct 13 that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Title II validly abrogates state 14 sovereign immunity.” United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 159 (2006) (emphasis 15 in original). While Plaintiff’s Complaint identifies an alleged violation of the ADA 16 under 42 U.S.C. §12132, it does not separately identify District conduct that violates 17 the Fourteenth Amendment. This omission may be remedied in an amended 18 complaint. 19 For Plaintiff’s third claim for relief brought under the Rehabilitation Act of 20 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794, the State has waived its sovereign immunity. Douglas, 271 21 F.3d 812, 820 (9th Cir 2001) (“Accordingly, we hold that by accepting federal 22 Rehabilitation Act funds, California has waived its sovereign immunity under the 23 Rehabilitation Act.”). Therefore, the third claim for relief for violations of the 24 Rehabilitation Act claim may proceed. 25 The remaining claims four through twelve against the District are state law 26 causes of action that are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Ladera 27 Taxpayers for Integrity in Governance v. Las Lomitas Elementary Sch. Dist., No. 28 24cv02412-WHO, 2024 WL 3697035, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2024) (“As for 1 |plaintiff’s state law claims, those claims are also barred in federal court by Eleventh 2 Amendment immunity.”); T.L. v. Orange Unified Sch. Dist., No. 23cv1078-FWS- 3 |KES, 2024 WL 305387, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2024) (dismissing remaining state 4 claims against school district based on Eleventh Amendment immunity). 5 CONCLUSION 6 The Grossmont Union High School District’s motion to dismiss is granted, 7 |without prejudice, with respect to all of Plaintiff's claims for relief except the third 8 Iclaim (alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act). Plaintiff may file an amended 9 |complaint within 21 days. F.R.C.P. 15(a)(2) (leave to amend to be freely given). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 11 | DATED: October 7, 2024 4 MMhAA 12 OGER T. BE 3 United States District Judg 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- tm mm tT Amana □□□□ □□