Sheila Dharod v. Los Angeles City College;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHEILA DHAROD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LOS ANGELES CITY COLLEGE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-56607
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-03902-JST-RNB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine S. Tucker, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Sheila Dharod appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to her impeachment as a
student body leader at a California community college. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
FEB 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-56607 2
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194
(9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Dharod’s 42 U.S.C. § 1985 claims
because Dharod failed to allege either a racial or other class-based conspiracy to
deprive her of her equal protection rights, or that defendants interfered with any
judicial proceeding or a federal official’s performance of his or her duties. See 42
U.S.C. § 1985; see also Usher v. Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987)
(discussing elements of § 1985 claim).
The district court properly dismissed Dharod’s § 1983 claims against the
Los Angeles City College and the Associated Students Organization based on
Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, and against the individual student
defendants because they did not act under color of state law. See Rounds v. Or.
State Bd. of Higher Educ., 166 F.3d 1032, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 1999) (state
university’s student government body is entitled to Eleventh Amendment
immunity); Cerrato v. S.F. Comm. Coll. Dist., 26 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 1994)
(community college districts are dependent instrumentalities of the state for
purposes of Eleventh Amendment); see also Huffman v. County of Los Angeles,
147 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998) (defendant must have acted “under color of”
law to be liable under § 1983).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-56607 3
The district court also properly dismissed Dharod’s failure to train or
supervise claims because there can be no § 1983 liability for failing to train or
supervise private student actors. See Huffman, 147 F.3d at 1057.
However, given her pro se status, Dharod should have been allowed leave to
amend her § 1983 claims for alleged constitutional violations against Dean Peters
in his official capacity to the extent that she sought prospective injunctive relief.
See Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 825 (9th Cir. 2007) (state officials sued in
their official capacity for prospective injunctive relief, including expungement of
records related to a student’s censure and denial of seat in student government, are
persons subject to suit under § 1983); West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49-50 (1988)
(public employees act under color of state law when acting in their official
capacity); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend must be
granted unless it is clear that the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by
amendment). Accordingly, we vacate only the denial of leave to amend Dharod’s
§ 1983 claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments against Dean Peters in
his official capacity to the extent that they seek prospective injunctive relief.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --