noting that immunity from suit protects government officials not only from trial but also from pre-trial burdens such as discovery
How later courts described this case
- noting that immunity from suit protects government officials not only from trial but also from pre-trial burdens such as discovery
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 24 2011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