ZMH v. San Francisco Unified School District ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ZMH, Case No. 3:19-cv-03840-JD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 15, 30, 32, 37 10 SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 In 2017, ZMH was an eighth-grade student in the San Francisco Unified School District 14 (SFUSD). He was involved in an incident involving a water gun that is alleged to have led to a 15 visit to ZMH’s home by social workers, and other events. ZMH’s mother filed this action pro se 16 on her son’s behalf. See Dkt. No. 1. 17 SFUSD and the other defendants filed a number of motions to dismiss raising issues 18 ranging from untimeliness under statutes of limitations to failure to state a claim. Dkt. Nos. 15, 19 30, 32, 37. ZMH’s mother filed responses to the motions. Dkt. Nos. 18, 35, 38, 42. 20 The Court need not get into the thicket of arguments made by the parties because the 21 complaint fails to state a plausible federal claim. Pro se complaints and other filings are liberally 22 construed. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). Even so, a pro 23 se plaintiff must still meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 by pleading 24 sufficient facts to make out a plausible claim for relief. See Nguyen Gardner v. Chevron Capital 25 Corp., No. 15-cv-1514-JD, 2015 WL 12976114, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2015); Bell Atlantic 26 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 27 The complaint falls short of this standard. It tries to allege a number of federal civil rights 1 and the Thirteenth Amendment. But the factual allegations do not plausibly show that any of 2 || these laws may have been violated by the events in 2017. For example, the complaint says that 3 ZMH was denied the ability to make and enforce contracts under Section 1981, but he was in 4 || eighth grade at the time, which ordinarily would deny him any power as a minor to enter into a 5 || binding contract. The claim under the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits slavery and 6 || involuntary servitude, is equally mysterious. Neither claim is supported by any facts indicating 7 that ZMH can plausibly sue on these grounds. The same must be said of the allegations involving 8 || purchasing and owning personal property under section 1982, and constitutional violations under 9 || Section 1983. The Title VI claim does not have facts plausibly showing a discriminatory intent, 10 || which is required for the retrospective damages that ZMH seeks. Guardians Ass’n v. Civil Service 11 Com’n of City of New York, 463 U.S. 582, 607 n. 27 (1983). 12 Consequently, the complaint cannot go forward in its current form. ZMH may file an 5 13 amended complaint that addresses these concerns by September 25, 2020. The complaint may not 14 add any new parties or claims without the prior permission of the Court. Failure to meet this 3 15 || deadline, or file a new complaint consistent with this order, will result in dismissal with prejudice 16 || under Rule 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. || Datea: August 28, 2020 19 20 JAMES PONATO 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28