Steshenko v. Board of Trustees of Foothill-De Anza Community College District

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California grants defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and denies the motion to strike as moot. The court dismisses the federal claims for First Amendment retaliation, retaliation for filing an age-discrimination complaint, and due process violations without leave to amend, finding insufficient allegations of entitlement, adverse action, and causation. The court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims for breach of obligations arising under law and breach of contract.

Holdings

1. The First Amended Complaint failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim because it did not plausibly allege an adverse action or that Plaintiff's lawsuits were a substantial or motivating factor in Defendants' conduct.
2. The First Amended Complaint failed to state a retaliation claim based on Plaintiff's age-discrimination complaints because it did not plausibly allege that Defendants took adverse action against him because of those complaints.
3. The First Amended Complaint failed to state a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment or California Constitution because it did not plausibly allege a protected entitlement to enrollment or a deprivation without due process.
4. After dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the First Amended Complaint plausibly stated a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on Defendants' alleged refusal to enroll Plaintiff in practicum courses after he filed state-court lawsuits.
2. Whether the First Amended Complaint plausibly stated a retaliation claim based on Plaintiff's complaints about age discrimination under the ADEA, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, FEHA, or related regulations.
3. Whether the First Amended Complaint plausibly stated a procedural due process claim based on Defendants' alleged failure to respond to Plaintiff's enrollment request.
4. Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining California-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.
5. Whether Defendants' motion to strike should be decided after the complaint was dismissed.

Disposition

dismissed