Zochlinski v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
| Decision Date | 04 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:10-cv-1824-KJM-KJN PS,2:10-cv-1824-KJM-KJN PS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | HOWARD ALAN ZOCHLINSKI, Plaintiffs, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. |
Presently before the court is defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1 (ECF No. 73.) Plaintiff filed an opposition and defendants filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 80, 81.) The court heard this matter on its October 29, 2015 law and motion calendar. Plaintiff appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Meaghan A. Snyder appeared on behalf of defendants. The undersigned has fully considered the parties' briefs, the parties' oral arguments, and appropriate portions of the record. For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that defendants' motions to dismiss be granted and this action be dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff commenced this action on January 22, 2010, in the Yolo County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1-1.) Defendants subsequently removed the case to this court on the basis of this court's federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice (ECF No. 6), which was granted on August 11, 2011. (ECF No. 45.) Judgment was entered for defendants on that same day (ECF No. 46), which plaintiff then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 51.)
On June 10, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a memorandum opinion that affirmed in part and reversed in part the August 11, 2011 order and judgment (ECF Nos. 45, 46) granting defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing plaintiff's original complaint with prejudice. (ECF No. 62.)2 In particular, the opinion affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims in his original complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 against the Regents of the University of California, and his damages claims under those provisions against John Oakley and John Jones, Jr. in their official capacities. (Id. at 2.) The opinion further affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982 and 1983, and claims under Title II, IV, VI, and VII of the Civil Rights Act against all defendants. (Id.) However, the opinion reversed and remanded the dismissal of plaintiff's equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against John Jones, Jr. and defamation plus claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against John Oakley and John Jones, Jr. to the extent that these claims were asserted against these defendants in their individual capacities. (Id. at 3.) The opinion also reversed and remanded the dismissal of plaintiff's state law claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 et seq., against all defendants. (Id. at 4.) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded this action to this court for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion. (Id. at 5.)
In light of this mandate, the court vacated the judgment dated August 11, 2011 (ECF No. 46) insofar as it concerned plaintiff's following claims: (1) equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against John Jones, Jr.; (2) defamation-plus claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against John Oakley and John Jones, Jr. to the extent that these claims are asserted against these defendants in their individual capacities; (3) state law defamation; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (5) violations of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court further directed plaintiff to file either an amended complaint asserting the claims for which judgment had been vacated or a statement that he desired to proceed on his original complaint as modified by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion. (ECF No. 66.) Plaintiff subsequently filed the operative first amended complaint. (ECF No. 72.) Defendants then filed their motion to dismiss that is presently before the court. (ECF No. 73.)
Plaintiff's allegations in the first amended complaint generally stem from his disqualification in 1993 from a Ph.D. program at the University of California at Davis ("U.C. Davis") and defendants' alleged actions in connection with his pursuit to be reinstated in that program. (ECF No. 72 at 2-6.) Defendant John Jones, Jr. ("Jones") was a U.C. Davis police officer who arrested plaintiff in 1972 and again in 1992 on unspecified charges, which were dismissed after both arrests. (Id. at 2.) Defendant John Oakley ("Oakley") is a law professor at U.C. Davis.3 (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that in the spring of 2000, he approached Peter Rodman, Ph.D. ("Professor Rodman"), a professor of anthropology at U.C. Davis, to request Professor Rodman's assistance in his efforts to be reinstated in the Ph.D. program from which he had been disqualified. (Id. at 4.) Before agreeing to provide plaintiff with the requested assistance, Professor Rodman began to investigate plaintiff's case by contacting several individuals within the U.C. Davis community, including defendant Oakley. (Id. at 5.) On January 10, 2009, Professor Rodman signed a declaration in connection with a previous lawsuit filed by plaintiff that, in part, detailed Professor Rodman's investigation efforts and findings regarding plaintiff's request for assistance. (Id. at 22-41.) Plaintiff attaches this declaration to his first amended complaint and directly references and quotes from it throughout his allegations with regard to Professor Rodman's statements concerning Jones and Oakley.
Specifically, plaintiff alleges that Oakley slandered plaintiff when he made statements to Professor Rodman in 2000 (id. at 6), the alleged details of which plaintiff quotes directly from Professor Rodman's attached declaration:
I wanted [Oakley's] advice because I knew he had been defending a convicted criminal on "death row" at the Vacaville State Prison, and I thought he would have a good sense for the merits of standing up for a man who is possibly accused. I also felt he would have some sense for the credibility of Mr. Zochlinski's alleged history and could advise me on whether to pursue supporting him or not. When I gave him Mr. Zochlinski's name, without even discussing the case, Mr. Oakley told me that Mr. Zochlinski had come to his office many years before to ask for his advice and assistance in his case against the University. He continued to advise me not to become involved with Mr. Zochlinski. In his words, I could be ". . . putting myself and my family in danger . . ." by doing so. He went on to equate his impression of Mr. Zochlinski with his impression of Charles Manson, the convicted psychopath housed at Vacaville prison where his death row client is housed.
(Id. at 28.) The first amended complaint continues to quote Professor Rodman's declaration as follows:
I have no doubt Mr. Oakley was sincerely concerned for my safety and thought he was giving me a reasonable admonition. His was the most extreme version of his reaction to Mr. Zochlinski, and he was the most extremely wrong in his description. It is chilling to think that first impressions that are so wrong andirrational like t[hat] of . . . Professor Oakley could have affected Mr. Zochlinski's life so consistently.
(Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Oakley's statements about him "were heard by Prof. Rodman and other persons unknown to Zochlinski." (Id. at 6.) He further alleges that he believes that Oakley made similar statements to unspecified members of the U.C. Davis academic council, senate, and administration. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that Oakley's slanders were "based on racial animus [anti-Semitism], personal bias and retaliation for past complaints of anti-Semitism against his employer, the Regents of [the] University of California." (Id. at 14.)
Plaintiff also alleges that he "believes" that "Oakley, in June 2006, acted through fraud and oppression to secure passage of [the] University-wide Committee on Rules & Jurisdiction . . . Legislative Ruling 6.06," which was interpreted by U.C. Davis administrators to deny plaintiff's reinstatement into the Ph.D. program from which he had been disqualified. (Id. at 12-13.) Plaintiff alleges that Oakley was able to secure passage of Ruling 6.06 through his position as chair of the academic senate. (Id. at 13.)
With regard to defendant Jones, plaintiff alleges that Professor Rodman had spoken to Teresa Lee, a journalist at the U.C. Davis campus newspaper the California Aggie, who told Rodman that Jones had approached the editor of the newspaper in 2001 and intimidated him with a slanderous "description of [plaintiff] as a dangerous man," which caused the editor to decide to not publish a story on plaintiff that Ms. Lee had been writing. (Id. at 6.) Professor Rodman's attached declaration also provides the following regarding this alleged incident:
Teresa Lee was a journalist for the California Aggie, the UCD student newspaper, at the time she was writing about Mr. Zochlinski in 2001. The article on Mr. Zochlinski was to appear in the Aggie. According to Ms. Lee, before the article was to appear, Officer Jones went to see the editor. According to Ms. Lee, the editor was intimidated by Jones's description of Mr. Zochlinski as a dangerous man and decided not to run the story. Again according to Ms. Lee, after a complaint about Jones's actions, the police concluded that he did nothing wrong other than using his own keys to enter the paper's offices instead of making an appointment before hand [sic] or knocking and being invited to enter. By Ms. Lee's report, after the Aggie refused to run the story on Mr. Zochlinski, Lee was no longer employed by the paper because the editor refused to accept any articles from her. Her article was eventually printed in the Sacramento News and Review.
(ECF No. 72 at 31.) Plaintiff further alleges that "Jones also had...
To continue reading
Request your trial