Grimes v. Board of Trustees for Northcentral University

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JEROME L. GRIMES, Case Nos.: 22-CV-1321 TWR (JLB)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT

13 v. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR ECF PERMISSION;

14 BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR

(2) DISMISSING WITHOUT

NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY;

15 PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S SECOND

(NCU) NORTHCENTRAL

AMENDED COMPLAINT

16 UNIVERSITY, official capacity;

ASHLEY FORREST, individual and

17 (ECF Nos. 17, 18, 19)

official capacity; BRANDON ROMERO,

18 individual and official capacity; JIMMY

BROWN, individual and official capacity,

19

Defendants.

20

21

22

23

24 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Jerome L. Grimes’s Second Amended

25 Complaint (ECF No 17 (“Second Amended Complaint” or “SAC”)),1 Request for ECF

26

27

28 1 Plaintiff styles his amended complaint as the “Third Amended Complaint,” (see ECF No. 17), but

1 Permission (ECF No. 18), and “Motion for Leave to (ECF) Electronic Filing Permission”

2 (ECF No. 19 (“ECF Mot.”)). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and has been granted

3 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status, the Court must screen his Second Amended Complaint

4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES

5 WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s ECF Motion and DISMISSES WITHOUT

6 PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend.

7 BACKGROUND

8 Plaintiff initiated this action on September 2, 2022, filing a Complaint, (see ECF No.

9 1); Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP, (see ECF No. 2); and Motion for Leave to File

10 Electronically, (see ECF No. 3). He filed his First Amended Complaint on November 23,

11 2022, (see ECF No. 6), and attempted to file a Second Amended Complaint on January 29,

12 2023, (see ECF No. 9), which the Court struck for failure to obtain the Court’s leave in

13 accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) prior to filing. (See ECF No.

14 10).

15 Meanwhile, the Court served Plaintiff with several filings via U.S. Mail Service, (see

16 ECF Nos. 4, 5, 10), each of which was returned by the Post Service as undeliverable. (See

17 ECF Nos. 7, 8, 11.) On March 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address,

18 which the Clerk of Court designated as “incomplete.” (See ECF No. 12.) Consequently,

19 on March 20, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a complete Notice of Change of

20 Address or to show cause why this action should not be dismissed within fourteen days.2

21 (See ECF No. 13.)

22 On April 17, 2023, the Court issued its Order (1) Discharging Order to Show Cause,

23 (2) Directing Clerk of Court to Update Plaintiff’s Address, (3) Granting Motion to Proceed

24 in Forma Pauperis, (4) Denying Motion for Leave to File Electronically, (5) Screening

25 Complaint Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [§] 1915(e), and (6) Dismissing Complaint for Failure to

26

27

Amended Complaint that Plaintiff attempted to file on January 9, 2023. (See ECF Nos. 9–10.)

28 Accordingly, the Court treats the operative complaint as the Second Amended Complaint.

1 State a Claim. (ECF No. 15 (“Screening Order”).) As relevant here, the Court denied

2 Plaintiff’s initial motion for leave to file electronically because Plaintiff’s motion failed to

3 address his equipment and software capabilities and failed to assert his agreement to follow

4 the rules in the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.

5 (Screening Order at 4.) The Court similarly found Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

6 pursuant to Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, and common law negligence deficient because

7 Plaintiff failed to allege essential elements of his claims but granted Plaintiff sixty days’

8 leave to file an amended complaint. (See id. at 5–13.)

9 Plaintiff timely filed the operative complaint on April 24, 2023, in addition to a

10 document titled “Address Appeasement And: Request for ECF Filing Permission.” (ECF

11 Nos. 17–18.) On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second “Motion for Leave to (ECF)

12 Electronic Filing Permission.” (ECF No. 19.)

13 ECF MOTION

14 The Court now turns to Plaintiff’s “Address Appeasement And: Request for ECF

15 Filing Permission,” (ECF No. 18), and ECF Motion, (ECF No. 19). Because the former

16 “Address Appeasement And: Request for ECF Filing Permission” is largely incoherent,

17 (see ECF No. 18 at 2), the Court treats Plaintiff’s ECF Motion (ECF No. 19) as the

18 operative request.

19 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5.4, “[e]xcept as prescribed by local rule, order, or other

20 procedure, the Court has designated all cases to be assigned to the Electronic Filing

21 System.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 5.4(a). With respect to pro se litigants, however, “[u]nless

22 otherwise authorized by the court, all documents submitted for filing to the Clerk’s Office

23 . . . must be in legible, paper form.” Office of the Clerk, United Stated District Court for

24 the Southern District of California, Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and

25 Procedures Manual, § 2(b) (Sept. 8, 2023). “A pro se party seeking leave to electronically

26 file documents must file a motion and demonstrate the means to do so properly by stating

27 their equipment and software capabilities in addition to agreeing to follow all rules and

28 policies in the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.” Id. The manual

1 refers to the Court’s official website for CM/ECF technical specifications, id. at § 1(i),

2 which include a “[c]omputer running Windows or Macintosh;” “[s]oftware to convert

3 documents from a word processor format to portable document format (PDF),” such as

4 “Adobe Acrobat 7.0 and higher;” “[i]nternet access supporting a transfer rate of 56kb or

5 higher;” a compatible browser, such as “Firefox 15, Internet Explorer 9, and Safari 5.1/6

6 or later version;” a “[s]canner to image non-computerized documents 400 pixels per inch

7 (ppi);” and a PACER account. United States District Court, Southern District of California,

8 CM/ECF Information: General Information, https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/cmecf.aspx

9 #undefined1 (last visited Dec. 8, 2023).

10 Plaintiff’s ECF Motion comprises a declaration in which he identifies the

11 specifications for his computer equipment and avers, “[t]he capabilities of the

12 PLAINTIFF’S Dell laptop (Notebook) is speed, reliability, storage, and accuracy for

13 repetitively uploading pdf-documents to the HEREIN Court’s ECF System.” (ECF Mot.

14 at 2.) Plaintiff further avers that he has “read” the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and

15 Procedures Manual and that he “agree[s] to abide by the rules and policies” outlined

16 therein. (Id. at 2–3.)

17 Plaintiff’s ECF Motion remains deficient. While Plaintiff includes information such

18 as the make and model of his laptop, he fails to indicate whether his laptop complies with

19 the requirements set forth on the Court’s official website for CM/ECF technical

20 specifications. See United States District Court, Southern District of California, CM/ECF

21 Information: General Information, https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/cmecf.aspx#undefined1

22 (last visited Dec. 8, 2023). Specifically, while Plaintiff indicates that he has “Windows

23 Pro OA,” and that “OA = OEM Activation which means that Windows version on that

24 sticker would automatically activate if you use the OEM’s Windows DVD to install

25 Windows,” it is not clear from the ECF Motion whether Plaintiff actually is running

26 Windows. (See ECF Mot. at 2.) The ECF Motion similarly indicates that Plaintiff can

27 “repetitively upload[] pdf-documents” to ECF from his laptop but fails to indicate whether

28 Plaintiff has “[s]oftware to convert documents from a word processor format to portable

1 document format (PDF),” such as “Adobe Acrobat 7.0 and higher,” or a “[s]canner to

2 image non-computerized documents 400 pixels per inch (ppi).” (See id.) Nor does Plaintiff

3 state whether he has “[i]nternet access supporting a transfer rate of 56kb or higher” or a

4 compatible browser, such as “Firefox 15, Internet Explorer 9, and Safari 5.1/6 or later

5 version.” (See id.) In light of these failings, the Court DENIES WITHOUT

6 PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s ECF Motion.

7 SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

8 Because the Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, it must screen

9 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under this

10 statute, courts shall review and sua sponte dismiss any complaint or part thereof that is

11 frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks damages

12 from defendants who are immune. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126‒27 (9th Cir.

13 2000) (en banc). “The purpose of [screening] is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or

14 malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d

15 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d

16 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)).

17 Pursuant to Rule 8, a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim

18 showing that a pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “The standard for

19 determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

20 under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

21 standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.

22 2012). Rule 12(b)(6) requires that complaints “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted

23 as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

24 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Detailed factual allegations are not

25 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

26 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. And the “mere possibility

27 of misconduct” or “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation[s]” will

28 not suffice. Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).

1 Courts have a duty to construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally. See Karim-

2 Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). In giving liberal

3 interpretation to a pro se complaint, however, a court may not “supply essential elements

4 of claims that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673

5 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The district court should grant leave to amend if it appears

6 “at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect,” unless the court determines that

7 “the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez, 203 F.3d

8 at 1130–31 (citing Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995); Balistreri v.

9 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1990)).

10 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants Northcentral

11 University and its Board of Trustees (together, “Northcentral”) violated Title VI.3 (See

12 generally SAC at 2, 5–17.) Additionally, the SAC briefly states that Plaintiff is attempting

13 to hold “DEFENDANT vicariously liable for supervisory negligence” related to the alleged

14 misconduct of a Northcentral employee, Ashley Forrest.4 (See id. at ¶ 7.) It appears,

15

16

3 While Plaintiff only names the Board of Trustees of Northcentral University as a Defendant in the

17 caption of his SAC, he also includes several references to the “NCU Defendants,” which he identifies as

“NCU and NCU Trustees.” (See Compl. at 1, ¶¶ 6, 36, 51.) Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

18 Procedure requires plaintiffs to specifically name each defendant in the caption of their complaint. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the parties.”). A defendant is not presumed a

19

party to the action if he is not served or named in the caption unless he is specifically and sufficiently

20 identified later in the body of the complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992);

Rice v. Hamilton Air Force Base Commissary, 720 F.2d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 1983) (“[A] party may be

21 properly in a case if the allegations in the body of the complaint make it plain that the party is intended as

a defendant.” (citing Hoffman v. Halden, 268 F.2d 280, 303–04 (9th Cir. 1959))); see also Greenwood v.

22 Ross, 778 F.2d 448, 451–52 (8th Cir. 1985) (failure to list a defendant in the caption does not mean the

action cannot be maintained against him where he is identified in the body of the complaint). In

23

accordance with this Court’s obligation to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at

24 623, the Court interprets Plaintiff’s SAC as stating claims against both Northcentral and its Board of

Trustees.

25

4 Plaintiff has not realleged a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See generally SAC.) Nor has

26 he realleged claims against Forrest, Brown, or Romero. (See id.) The Court considers the § 1983 claim

and the claims against Forrest, Brown, and Romero waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Lacey v. Maricopa

27

County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend that are not

28 re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled”); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v.

1 therefore, that in addition to the Title VI claim, Plaintiff has brought a claim for negligent

2 supervision under California common law. The Court addresses each claim in turn.

3 I. Title VI Claim

4 Title VI states that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race,

5 color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be

6 subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial

7 assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; see also Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280 (2001)

8 (explaining that Title VI only prohibits intentional discrimination). “To state a claim under

9 [Title VI], a plaintiff must allege that (1) the entity involved is engaging in racial

10 discrimination; and (2) the entity involved is receiving federal financial assistance.” Fobbs

11 v. Holy Cross Health Sys. Corp., 29 F.3d 1439, 1447 (9th Cir.1994), overruled on other

12 grounds by Daviton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 241 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2001).

13 Plaintiff clearly alleges that Northcentral receives federal financial assistance. (See SAC

14 ¶ 4.) Thus, the only remaining issue is whether Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that

15 Northcentral engaged in racial discrimination.

16 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint shifts the focus of his Title VI claim from

17 the allegedly disparate treatment of his professor, Jimmy Brown, to the allegedly racially

18 charged conduct of Northcentral administrator Ashley Forrest. (Compare SAC, with ECF

19 No. 6.) From Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court infers that he now is attempting to state a

20 claim for a potentially hostile school environment. To establish a hostile educational

21 environment claim under Title VI, a plaintiff must show that (1) there was a racially hostile

22 environment, (2) the school had notice of the problem, and (3) the school failed to respond

23 adequately to redress the racially hostile environment. Monteiro v. Tempe Union, 158 F.3d

24 1022, 1033 (1998). A “racially hostile environment” is “one in which racial harassment is

25 severe, pervasive or persistent so as to interfere with or limit the ability of an individual to

26 participate in or benefit from the services, activities or privileges provided by the

27 recipient.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S.

28 629, 652 (1999) (discussing standard for harassment claims under Title IX framework,

1 which is modeled on Title VI framework). The existence of a hostile educational

2 environment is a question of fact that must be determined based on the totality of the

3 circumstances, “including the victim’s race and age.” Monteiro, 158 F.3d at 1033. “Racial

4 harassment creates a hostile environment if it is sufficiently severe that it would interfere

5 with the educational program of a reasonable person of the same age and race as the

6 victim.” Id.

7 A school that is “‘deliberately indifferent’ to its students’ right to a learning

8 environment free of racial hostility and discrimination . . . is liable for damages under Title

9 VI.” Id. at 1034 (citing Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998)); see

10 also Stanley v. Trs. of Cal. State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining

11 that deliberate indifference is “the standard for imputing liability to the Trustees” under

12 analogous Title IX). Pursuant to this standard, a school is liable for its inaction “if the need

13 for intervention was so obvious, or if inaction was so likely to result in discrimination, that

14 ‘it can be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need.” Monteiro, 158 F.3d at

15 1034 (quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390 (1989)); see also Doe v. Willits

16 Unified Sch. Dist., 473 Fed. App’x 775, 776 (9th Cir. 2012) (“To meet this high standard,

17 there must, in essence, be an official decision not to remedy the violation and this decision

18 must be clearly unreasonable.”); Oden v. N. Marianas Coll., 440 F.3d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir.

19 2006) (explaining that a school may be held liable for deliberate indifference under Title

20 IX where the school’s response was “clearly unreasonable in light of the known

21 circumstances” (quoting Davis, 526 U.S. at 648)).

22 Plaintiff alleges that Northcentral’s employee Ashley Forrest, a white woman who

23 has worked at Northcentral as both a Financial Aid Team Lead and Admissions

24 Registration Academic Advisor between 2021 and 2022, (SAC ¶¶ 7–8), “racially

25 discriminated against Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected civil rights to a fair opportunity

26 to further his education without racial discrimination,” (id. ¶ 17; see also id. ¶¶ 42–43). As

27 best the Court can discern regarding the alleged racial discrimination, Plaintiff claims that

28 Forrest stole or refused to disburse $16,000 of Plaintiff’s GradPlus Financial Aid for his

1 Ph.D. program at Northcentral pursuant to “her own racially motivated agenda.” (Id. ¶¶

2 16, 21–22; see also ¶¶ 26, 30, 32, 35, 39, 45, 50.) Forrest’s thefts allegedly spanned

3 Plaintiff’s Fall 2021, Summer 2022, and Spring 2022 terms at Northcentral, but Plaintiff

4 claims he did not learn of the theft of the Summer 2022 and Spring 2022 loan disbursement

5 funds until October 21, 2022.5 (Id. ¶ 50.) He claims that on August 21, 2021, Forrest

6 “verbally via telephone stated: ‘I am taking EVERYTHING Nigga.’” (Id. ¶ 18 (emphasis

7 in original.)) He further states that Forrest “misrepresented to Plaintiff that this was the

8 appropriate way per policy to deny” disbursement of Plaintiff’s 2021 funding. (Id. ¶ 23.)

9 He also alleges that he was unaware that Forrest was racially discriminating against him

10 until after he viewed a “media release about a similar University Institution’s (i.e., MSU’s)

11 2016-sexual assault convictions of faculty such as Lawrence Gerard Nassar” in October

12 2022. (Id. ¶ 30.)

13 According to the Second Amended Complaint, Northcentral had knowledge of

14 Forrest’s racial discrimination against him but “show[ed] a deliberate indifference to the

15 complaints being made” and “actively discouraged or ignored reports/complaints” about

16 Forrest’s discrimination, “failed to take any action in response” to Plaintiff’s 2021

17 complaint about Forrest, and, consequently, “enabled their employees to STEAL $16,000”

18 of Plaintiff’s federal loan money. (Id. ¶¶ 36, 39 (emphasis in original), 49; see also id.

19 ¶¶ 29, 40, 46–47.) He alleges he filed a “SEE SOMETHING SAY SOMETHING”

20 pleading with Northcentral in 2021 about the alleged theft, which was dismissed because

21 Plaintiff “did not understand the ‘financial aid funding cycle.’” (Id. ¶¶ 43–44.) He also

22 claims to have discovered, through his own investigation, that Northcentral “utilized illegal

23 technology” on him “known as economic espionage act but with terror [sic] INTENT

24 versus Anti-terror [sic] INTENT.” (Id. ¶ 21.)

25

26

5 The Court cannot discern the total amount Forrest is alleged to have stolen or refused to disburse

27

to Plaintiff, who variously alleges that Forrest stole $6,000 and $16,000 of his loan disbursement funds in

28 2021, (SAC ¶¶ 16, 43), and $16,000 of his loan disbursement funds in 2022, (id. ¶ 43). Elsewhere, he also

1 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claim of racial discrimination must have facial

2 plausibility, meaning the “factual content [must] allow[] the court to draw the reasonable

3 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663

4 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). Here, the salient

5 allegations—that Forrest stole or refused to disburse Plaintiff’s loan money and informed

6 him of such on one occasion via a phone call in which she used a racial slur, (see SAC ¶¶

7 18, 21)—permit the Court to infer that racial animus motivated her conduct. See Monteiro,

8 158 F.3d at 1034 (concluding that plaintiff’s allegations that African American students at

9 school were called a racial epithet by white children and that the same epithet was scrawled

10 on the school’s walls satisfied the first element of Title VI hostile environment claim).

11 Plaintiff’s subsequent allegations, however, which are difficult to understand, also appear

12 to be internally inconsistent and contradictory. For example, Plaintiff’s allegation that

13 Forrest used a racial slur when she told him she was stealing his loan money makes no

14 sense given his allegations that: (1) Forrest stole Plaintiff’s loan money “due to covert

15 unfairplay [sic]” by Northcentral professor Jimmy Brown and Forrest, who apparently had

16 a “ROUSE [sic] to steal, defraud, deny, and permanently deprive” Plaintiff of his loan

17 money, (SAC ¶ 21); (2) Plaintiff did not know Forrest was stealing the loan money “for

18 her own racially motivated agenda,” (id. ¶ 22); (3) Forrest told Plaintiff “this was the

19 appropriate way per policy to deny” Plaintiff’s loan money, (id. ¶ 23); (4) Forrest caused a

20 “denial of” Plaintiff’s loan disbursement, (id. ¶¶ 27, 30, 32); (5) Plaintiff “first realized”

21 the “denial” of his loan disbursement was “racial discrimination abuse of authority” after

22 viewing a “media release about a similar University Institution’s (i.e., MSU’s) 2016-sexual

23 assault convictions of faculty such as Lawrence Gerard Nassar” in “October 2022,” (id. ¶¶

24 30–32); (6) Plaintiff’s loan money apparently was “RETURN[ed] BACK” to the U.S.

25 Department of Education, (id. ¶ 49); and (7) the Financial Aid Department informed

26 Plaintiff that his loan money had “‘not’ [been] received from the U.S. Department of

27 Education,” (id. ¶ 45).

28

1 The Court is troubled by the inconsistences in Plaintiff’s allegations, particularly his

2 repeated representation that he did not realize he was experiencing racial discrimination

3 until October 2022, when he read about the conviction of Larry Nassar while traveling on

4 a greyhound bus. (Id. ¶¶ 30–32; see also ¶ 22 (alleging he did not know theft was based

5 on Forrest’s “racially motivated agenda”)). That Forrest’s use of a racial slur did not put

6 Plaintiff on notice in 2021 that he might be experiencing racial discrimination simply is

7 not plausible. As Forrest’s alleged phone call to Plaintiff is the sole nonconclusory fact

8 that might support the existence of a racially hostile environment to which Northcentral

9 was deliberately indifferent,6 see Monteiro, 158 F.3d at 1034, the presence of specific,

10 inconsistent factual allegations compels the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff has not

11 adequately stated a Title VI claim. See Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 964 (9th Cir.

12 2013) (affirming dismissal of antitrust claim where plaintiff’s “overcharge theory” was

13 “implausible in the face of contradictory market facts alleged in her complaint”); Jones v.

14 Bank of Am., N.A., No. 18-cv-5631, 2021 WL 3163758, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2021)

15 (dismissing “difficult to comprehend” and “internally inconsistent” factual allegations as

16 “implausible” under Iqbal); Hernandez v. Select Portfolio, Inc., No. 15-cv-1896, 2015 WL

17 3914741, at *10 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2015) (dismissing claim as “inherently implausible”

18 where complaint included contradictory factual allegations that plaintiff’s loan

19 modification was complete in February 2014, and that defendant requested additional

20 information related to loan modification in April 2014, to which plaintiff requested

21 additional time to comply); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (explaining that court’s

22 plausibility determination involves a “context-specific” inquiry that requires a reviewing

23 court “to draw on its judicial experience and common sense”).

24

25

6 Plaintiff is reminded that, regardless of his pro se and IFP status, each time he files a pleading with

26 the Court, he is certifying that, to the best of his “knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an

inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” the pleading’s “factual contentions have evidentiary support

27

or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for

28 further investigation or discovery[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3). The Court “may impose an appropriate

1 Moreover, nowhere does Plaintiff articulate a “clear and plain statement” of his

2 claim, as required by Rule 8(a). While Plaintiff frequently refers to race throughout the

3 Second Amended Complaint, the pleading is too disjointed and unintelligible for the Court

4 to determine Plaintiff’s claim and too vague to put Northcentral on notice of the claim

5 against it. See Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981)

6 (explaining that a complaint that is “verbose, confusing and conclusory” violates Rule 8).

7 The Second Amended Complaint also suffers from repeated frivolous allegations

8 concerning various individuals’ “terror intent,” “covert terror,” and “economic espionage,”

9 as well as inexplicable references to the Unabomber, University of San Francisco Campus

10 Police Officer Nathan Johnson, Nancy Pelosi and her husband, and Plaintiff’s own

11 parents.7 (See SAC ¶¶ 21, 26, 33, 34, 51, 58); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

12 327–28 (1989) (explaining that judges reviewing claims pursuant to § 1915 have the

13 authority to “pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations” and dismiss “claims

14 describing fantastic or delusional scenarios”). Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s

15 Title VI claim for failure to state a claim and for violation of Rule 8.

16 II. Negligent Supervision Claim

17 Plaintiff reasserts his claim that Northcentral was negligent, alleging that

18 Northcentral is “vicariously liable for supervisory negligence” of Forrest. (SAC ¶ 7.) The

19 Court interprets this allegation as an attempt to state a claim for negligent supervision.8

20 To recover for negligent supervision, a plaintiff must prove the traditional elements

21 of actionable negligence under California common law, which are (1) a legal duty to use

22 reasonable care and (2) a breach of that duty, (3) which actually and proximately causes

23

24

7 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the U.S.

25 District Court for the Northern District of California entered a pre-filing order regarding Plaintiff’s cases

related, among other things, to “covert terrorism.” Grimes v. Mourgos, No. 07-mc-80199, 2007 WL

26 2377025, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2007).

27

8 To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to allege that Northcentral is vicariously liable under Title VI

28 for damages, that claim appears to be foreclosed. See United States v. County of Maricopa, 889 F.3d 648,

1 (4) damages to a person or property. See Thompson v. Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist.,

2 107 Cal. App. 4th 1352, 1371–72 (2003) (explaining that a student asserting negligent

3 supervision still is required to prove elements of negligence regardless of whether

4 defendant is a school district); see also, e.g., Mendoza v. City of L.A., 66 Cal. App. 4th

5 1333, 1339 (1998) (citing Wattenbarger v. Cincinnati Reds, Inc., 28 Cal. App. 4th 746, 751

6 (1994)). “[A]n employer can be liable to a third person for negligently hiring, supervising,

7 or retaining an unfit employee. Liability is based upon the facts that the employer knew or

8 should have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard and that

9 particular harm materializes.” Doe v. Capital Cities, 50 Cal. App. 4th 1038, 1054 (1996)

10 (internal citation omitted). “To establish negligent supervision, a plaintiff must show that

11 a person in a supervisorial position over the actor had prior knowledge of the actor’s

12 propensity to do the bad act.” Z.V. v. County of Riverside, 238 Cal. App. 4th 889, 902

13 (2015). “Liability for negligent supervision and/or retention of an employee is one of

14 direct liability for negligence, not vicarious liability.” Delfino v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 145

15 Cal. App. 4th 790, 815 (2006).

16 In the Court’s Screening Order, the Court explained that “the FAC is void of any

17 factual allegations related to the elements of common law negligence.” (Screening Order

18 at 11.) Specifically, the Court pointed out that

19 Plaintiff has not alleged that the Parties had a contractual relationship or any

other type of special relationship that legally entitled him to a certain duty of

20

care. See Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal. 2d 647, 650 (1958); Beacon Residential

21 Cmty. Ass’n v. Skidmore, Owings & Merril LLP, 59 Cal. App. 4th 568, 573

(2014). Even assuming Northcentral had a general duty of care to act as a

22

reasonably prudent university and board of trustees, Plaintiff has still failed to

23 allege how Northcentral’s conduct constituted a breach of that duty. Finally,

the Complaint does not allege how such a breach actually and proximately

24

caused Plaintiff damages.

25

26 (Id.) The Second Amended Complaint does not cure these deficiencies. While Plaintiff

27 alleges that Northcentral “had an obligation under federal and state law to investigate

28 complaints/reports,” (SAC ¶ 37), Plaintiff fails to identify a specific statute creating a legal

1 duty. Plaintiff also alleges that Northcentral had obligations pursuant to its “Office of

2 Institutional Equity” policy, (id. ¶ 38), but Plaintiff does not allege that the policy gave rise

3 to a contract between Plaintiff and Northcentral pursuant to which Northcentral owed

4 Plaintiff a duty. Moreover, the Court is dubious that the Second Amended Complaint

5 offers the precise language appearing in any relevant policy given the many typographical

6 errors in Plaintiff’s allegedly quoted language. (See id. ¶¶ 38–39.)

7 Even if the Court were to assume that Plaintiff has established that Northcentral

8 owed him a general duty of care in supervising employees like Forrest, Plaintiff, again, has

9 not alleged how Northcentral’s conduct constitutes a breach of that duty. Nor has Plaintiff

10 alleged how Northcentral’s breach actually and proximately caused Plaintiff’s damages.

11 As to causation, he alleges that, “[a]s a direct and/or proximate result of the NCU

12 Defendants’ actions and inactions, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer” a

13 variety of harms, including “self-employment market-share for his Business Plan Coloring

14 Book for K-12 Children & Adults in 11-different [sic] countries and 11-different [sic]

15 languages,” (id. ¶ 51), and “derail[ment] [of] the PLAINTIFF’S prospective ‘2028-

16 Guinness Books [sic] of World Records-PhD-Owner-Olympiad Quest and 2022-Sports

17 Arbitration for 2028-Summer Olympics Los Angeles International World Games Quest’-

18 Time Scheduling & In Pro Se WORK for the Venue sought via PLAINTIFF’S 9th

19 Amendment Rights to the Access to the Courts and Sports Arbitration collegiate and non-

20 collegiate status and venues, protected by the U.S. Constitution,” (id. ¶ 35 (emphasis in

21 original)). He does not, however, allege any facts showing how Northcentral’s breach

22 caused the many harms Plaintiff claims to have suffered. As courts have repeatedly held,

23 merely reciting the elements of a cause of action does not suffice to state a claim. See, e.g.,

24 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

25 III. Leave to Amend

26 Although Plaintiff has twice failed to state a Title VI claim and a negligence claim,

27 because the focus of his amended pleading has shifted substantially from his prior pleading,

28 the Court will grant Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend. See Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791

1 || F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint

2 || without leave to amend [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)] unless ‘it is absolutely

3 that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.’” (quoting

4 || Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012))).

5 To be clear, the Court is granting Plaintiff leave to amend his Title VI and negligence

6 ||claims against Defendants Northcentral and Northcentral’s Board of Trustees. Plaintiff

7 ||may not add new claims or parties, or resurrect claims that have been waived, see supra

8 4, without leave of Court.

9 CONCLUSION

10 In light of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

11 || Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 17) sua sponte for failing to comply with

12 |/Rule 8 and for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28

13 |/U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i1). Plaintiff MAY FILE an amended complaint curing the above-

14 identified deficiencies within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. [f Plaintiff fails to

15 || file an amended complaint within the time provided, this action shall be closed without

16 || further Order of the Court.

17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: January 12, 2024 —— (2

19 [5 re

20 Honorable Todd W. Robinson

5 United States District Judge

22

23

24

25

26

27

28