Ryan Clifford v. Regents of the University of California;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RYAN CLIFFORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-16255
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02935-JAM-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Ryan Clifford appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law violations arising from
his participation in his college fraternity’s pledge activities. We have jurisdiction
FILED
AUG 01 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 4 --

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Stanley v. Trs. of Cal. State Univ.,
433 F.3d 1129, 1136 (9th Cir. 2006) (statute of limitations); Lee v. City of Los
Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal for failure to state a claim).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Clifford’s Title IX claim against
defendants and his § 1983 equal protection and First Amendment retaliation claims
against defendant Cody because the statute of limitations had run before Clifford
filed his complaint. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (setting forth applicable
statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City
Of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 956 (9th Cir. 2011) (for § 1983 claims, the court applies
the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Stanley, 433
F.3d at 1136-37 (same for Title IX claims).
The district court properly dismissed Clifford’s § 1983 claims against
defendant Grissom because Clifford failed to allege facts sufficient to show that
Grissom treated Clifford differently because of sex or that Grissom took action
against Clifford because of his protected activity. See Pinard v. Clatskanie Sch.
Dist., 467 F.3d 755, 770 (9th Cir. 2006) (elements of a First Amendment
retaliation claim); Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist., 324 F.3d 1130, 1134
(9th Cir. 2003) (elements of an equal protection claim).
12-16255 2

-- 2 of 4 --

The district court properly dismissed Clifford’s Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 claim
against the University because Clifford failed to allege threats, intimidation, or
coercion by any University representative. See Venegas v. County of Los Angeles,
87 P.3d 1, 14 (Cal. 2004) (“Civil Code section 52.1 does not extend to all ordinary
tort actions because its provisions are limited to threats, intimidation, or coercion
that interferes with a constitutional or statutory right.”).
The district court properly dismissed Clifford’s negligence and intentional
infliction of emotional distress claims because defendants are generally immune
from tort suits arising from acts or omissions of the entity or its employees. See
Cal. Gov. Code § 815(a) (conferring immunity upon public entities); id. § 820.2
(conferring immunity upon public employees).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Clifford’s claims
without leave to amend because Clifford cannot correct the defects in his
complaint. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be
given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment).
We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s orders denying Clifford’s
post-judgment motions for relief from judgment because Clifford failed to file an
amended or separate notice of appeal. See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585
12-16255 3

-- 3 of 4 --

(9th Cir. 2007).
We reject Clifford’s contention that the district court judge was biased
against him.
Clifford’s request for judicial notice, filed on February 7, 2013, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
12-16255 4

-- 4 of 4 --