Groveman v. UC Davis

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01421
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 JONATHAN GROVEMAN, No. 2:24-cv-01421 WBS AC 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT1 15 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, MICHAEL V. DRAKE, 16 GARY S. MAY, MARY CROUGHAN, RENETTA GARRISON TULL, CLARE 17 SHINNERL, PABLO REGUERIN, and DOES 1-10, 18 Defendants. 19 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 Plaintiff Jonathan Groveman brought this action 22 against defendants Regents of the University of California, 23 Michael Drake, Gary May, Mary Croughan, Renetta Garrison Tull, 24 Clare Shinnerl, and Pablo Reguerin, alleging federal civil rights 25 violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title VI of the Civil Rights 26

27 1 The motion is decided on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). The scheduled April 14, 28 2025 hearing on the motion is hereby VACATED. 1 Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.; and Title II of the 2 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. 3 Plaintiff alleges that defendants allowed a pro-Palestine protest 4 encampment to be established on campus and therefore are 5 responsible for the conduct of encampment participants who 6 excluded plaintiff from the encampment on the basis of his Jewish 7 identity and disability. (First Am. Compl. (Docket No. 24).) 8 On February 4, 2025, the court dismissed the First 9 Amended Complaint. (See Order Dismissing FAC (Docket No. 43).) 10 Plaintiff now timely moves the court to amend the judgment under 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 by “revoking its order of 12 dismissal” (see Docket No. 45 at 1) and seeks permission to file 13 an amended complaint (see Proposed Second Am. Compl. (Docket No. 14 45 at 5-32)).2 15 Rule 59(e) allows a party to file a “motion to alter or 16 amend a judgment” within 28 days from entry of the judgment. 17 Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. 504, 507 (2020) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. 18 P. 59(e)). “The Rule gives a district court the chance ‘to 19 rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately following’ its 20 decision.” Id. at 508 (quoting White v. N.H. Dept. of Emp. Sec., 21 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982)). “Since specific grounds for a motion 22 to amend or alter are not listed in the rule, the district court 23 enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the 24 motion.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th 25

26 2 Plaintiff characterizes his motion as one for a “new trial.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(d). However, no trial has 27 occurred, as the court’s judgment followed its grant of a motion to dismiss. The court therefore construes the motion as one to 28 amend the judgment under Rule 59(e). 1 Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A district court 2 may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it ‘is presented with newly 3 discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 4 intervening change in the controlling law.’” Kaufmann v. 5 Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 843, 850 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Wood v. 6 Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014)). 7 Plaintiff contends that the court committed clear error 8 by dismissing his complaint without leave to amend. There was no 9 error. As the court held in its dismissal order, and as is 10 confirmed by plaintiff’s present motion, any amendment to the 11 complaint would be futile. (See Order Dismissing FAC at 12 12 (citing Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 656 (9th 13 Cir. 2017).) To allow the filing of the Proposed Second Amended 14 Complaint submitted with plaintiff’s present motion would not 15 salvage any of plaintiff’s claims. 16 The new allegations in support of plaintiff’s claims 17 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to the Equal Protection 18 and Free Exercise clauses do not save those claims, as they still 19 fail to draw a sufficient connection between defendants’ actions 20 or inactions and the specific harms committed by the protestors. 21 Nor do they do anything to defeat qualified immunity, as they 22 fail to allege violations of clearly established law. 23 The newly proposed allegations to the effect that 24 plaintiff “has been welcomed as a member of the UC Davis 25 community,” “views the UC Davis as the cultural center of his 26 life,” and “recently attended the UC Davis women’s basketball 27 game against Long Beach last March” (Proposed SAC ¶¶ 21, 55) do 28 nothing to establish that plaintiff was participating in a ene ene en en OO OS

1 federally funded program at the time of the alleged incident. 2 Thus, they do not cure the fact that plaintiff lacks statutory 3 standing on his Title VI claim. 4 Finally, the proposed amendments to plaintiff’s claim 5 | under the Americans With Disabilities Act still fail to identify 6 any destination on campus, other than the path the encampment 7 itself was located on, that plaintiff was prevented from 8 reaching. The inaccessibility of a single path does not 9 constitute “inaccessibility at a programmatic level” as required 10 for a violation of Title II of the ADA. See Kirola v. City & 11 Cnty. of San Francisco, 860 F.3d 1164, 1183 (9th Cir. 2017) 12 (emphasis added). 13 For these reasons, plaintiff’s Proposed Second Amended 14 Complaint still fails to state a cognizable claim under federal 15 law. The court’s previous finding of futility was thus not 16 erroneous. To allow this meritless suit to go forward would do a 17 disservice to those students and faculty who may have actually 18 suffered deprivations of their civil rights at the hands of the 19 | pro-Palestine demonstrators on the university campus. See, e.g., 20 Frankel v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. 2:24-cv-04702 MCS PD, 21 2024 WL 3811250 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2024); Kestenbaum v. 22 President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 743 F. Supp. 3d 297 (D. 23 | Mass. 2024), 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to 25 amend the judgment (Docket No. 45) be, and the same hereby is, 26 DENIED. . ak. a bho, (hi. 27 Dated: April 10, 2025 WILLIAMB.SHUBB 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE