Jones v. Beverly Hills Unified School District, 011813 FED9, 11-56167
|Party Name:||MARY JONES, on behalf of her minor child, C.J., Plaintiff - Appellant, and CHELSEA JONES, Plaintiff, v. BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee, andNOOSHIN MESHKATY; et al., Defendants.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||January 18, 2013|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted January 15, 2013 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 2:08-cv-07201-JFW-PJW for the Central District of California John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Mary Jones appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging discrimination in school athletics under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jones's claims alleging sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title IX because Jones did not allege that defendants retaliated or discriminated against her. See Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 184 (2005) (to prevail in a retaliation claim under Title IX, a plaintiff must show that defendants retaliated against her because she complained of sex discrimination); Cannon v. Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677, 694 (1979) (Title IX protects "persons discriminated against on the basis of sex").
To the extent that Jones alleged § 1983 claims in the operative complaint, dismissal of those claims was proper because they are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) ("It is clear . . . that in the absence of consent a suit in which the State or one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment."); Belanger v. Madera Unified Sch. Dist., 963 F.2d 248, 251-54 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that school district in California was a state agency for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1350 (9th Cir. 1982) ("Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to actions against state officers sued in...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP