Dollonne v. Ventura Unified School District Ex Rel. Its Officials , 440 F. App'x 533 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 24 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MONIQUE DOLLONNE,                                No. 09-55260
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01138-R-CT
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL
    DISTRICT, acting by and through its
    officials; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted June 7, 2011
    Pasadena, California
    Before: B. FLETCHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and SEABRIGHT,
    District Court Judge.**
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable J. Michael Seabright, District Court Judge for the U.S.
    District Court for Hawaii, sitting by designation.
    Monique Dollonne appeals the district court’s order dismissing her first
    amended complaint against the Ventura Unified School District (the District) and
    several of its employees in their individual and official capacities for failure to
    state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). She also challenges
    the district court’s denial of leave to amend. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and affirm the district court.
    We review de novo the district court’s decisions to grant a motion to
    dismiss under rule 12(b)(6), and to recognize Eleventh Amendment immunity.
    Eason v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 
    303 F.3d 1137
    , 1140 (9th Cir. 2002). The district
    court dismissed Dollonne’s claims against the District pursuant to Belanger v.
    Madera Unified School District, 
    963 F.2d 248
     (9th Cir. 1992), concluding that
    California school districts are arms of the state and thus immune from suit under
    the Eleventh Amendment. Dollonne contends that Belanger does not compel
    Eleventh Amendment immunity in her case, that the District had the burden of
    coming forward with facts to prove that it remains immune from suit, and that she
    should have been permitted to conduct discovery into the District’s relationship
    with the state. We disagree. Courts continue to rely on Belanger for the purposes
    of establishing Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Corales v. Bennett, 
    567 F.3d 554
    , 573 (9th Cir. 2009); Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Office of Educ., 
    502 F.3d 2
    1116, 1122–23 (9th Cir. 2007); Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore Unified Sch. Dist., 
    100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 289
    , 291 (Ct. App 4th 2000). Dollonne makes no factual allegations
    that the relationship between California school districts and the state has changed
    in the ensuing years. In this case, discovery to further develop the school district’s
    immunity from suit is unwarranted. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 
    472 U.S. 511
    , 525–26
    (1985) (noting that immunity from suit protects government officials not only from
    trial but also from pre-trial burdens such as discovery). The district court did not
    err in dismissing Dollonne’s claims against the District.
    A district court’s decision to grant qualified immunity, including whether
    the rights at issue were clearly established at the time of the events, is reviewed de
    novo. See Elder v. Holloway, 
    510 U.S. 510
    , 516 (1994). We express no opinion as
    to whether or not school employees violated Dollonne’s constitutional rights. See
    Pearson v. Callahan, 
    555 U.S. 223
    , 
    129 S. Ct. 808
    , 820–21 (2009). Nevertheless,
    the individual employees are entitled to qualified immunity, because, at the time of
    the events in question, no clearly established law would have given school officials
    notice that their conduct violated any constitutional right. Id. at 823.
    Denial of leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Johnson v.
    Buckley, 
    356 F.3d 1067
    , 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). The discretion is particularly broad
    where a plaintiff has previously been permitted to amend. See Chodos v. W.
    3
    Publ’g Co., 
    292 F.3d 992
    , 1003 (9th Cir. 2002). Dollone has previously amended,
    and, because all defendants are immune from suit, any further amendment would
    be futile. Johnson, 
    356 F.3d at 1077
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    4