Steshenko v. Board of Trustees of Foothill-De Anza Community College District

Background

Gregory Nicholas Steshenko, proceeding without a lawyer, enrolled in the Medical Laboratory Technician program offered by the Foothill-De Anza Community College District in 2016. He sued the District, its Board of Trustees, individual trustees, and one District employee based on his unsuccessful efforts to complete the program.

The court had previously dismissed some claims in Steshenko’s original complaint without permission to amend but allowed him to amend certain claims. Steshenko then filed a First Amended Complaint asserting five causes of action:

The defendants moved to dismiss and to strike portions of the amended complaint.

Court’s Analysis

First cause of action: retaliation for filing lawsuits

The court explained that a First Amendment retaliation claim requires plausible allegations that the plaintiff engaged in protected activity, the defendants took action that could discourage an ordinary person from continuing that activity, and the protected activity substantially motivated the defendants’ conduct.

The defendants conceded that filing state-court lawsuits was protected activity. The court nevertheless held that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege an adverse action or a causal connection. Steshenko’s theory was that the defendants retaliated by not enrolling him in required practicum courses. The court found no factual support for his assertion that sending emails to the program director or trustees was a proper way to obtain enrollment. It also held that the recipients’ failure to respond to his email did not, on the alleged facts, plausibly amount to refusing to enroll him. His claim that he had a legal right to enroll was treated as a legal conclusion rather than an established factual allegation.

The court also found that the alleged timing did not support a plausible inference of retaliation. It noted that 7.5 months had passed between an appellate ruling in one state-court case and Steshenko’s email requesting enrollment. The court further found that the amended complaint lacked factual allegations showing similarly situated students received different treatment. The court concluded that the alleged inability to enroll predated Steshenko’s lawsuits and had prompted those lawsuits, making retaliation a less plausible explanation.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the first cause of action.

Second cause of action: retaliation for an age-discrimination complaint

The court noted that the earlier order had already dismissed this claim without permission to amend as to the individual defendants because individuals could not be held liable for retaliation under the cited federal and California statutes, and because Steshenko had not shown a private right to sue under the cited California regulation. The earlier order allowed amendment as to the District and Board to address the lack of facts supporting adverse action caused by his age-discrimination complaints.

The amended complaint remained unclear about the defendants and legal basis for this claim. Regardless, the court held that it still failed to allege facts plausibly showing that the defendants took adverse action because of Steshenko’s complaints. The court relied on its analysis of the first claim, finding that the amended complaint did not plausibly establish a right to enroll, an adverse action, or causation. It also found that the timing and alleged different treatment of other students were insufficiently supported.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the second cause of action.

Third cause of action: due process

The court had previously found that the original complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendants’ failure to respond to Steshenko’s email deprived him of a right to public education without due process. The amended complaint did not cure those problems. The court held that Steshenko still had not alleged facts plausibly showing that he was legally entitled to enroll in the practicum courses or that the defendants were required to enroll him in response to his email.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the third cause of action.

State-law claims and motion to strike

The court dismissed the first, second, and third causes of action without leave to amend, meaning Steshenko was not given another opportunity to amend those claims in this case. Because all federal claims had been dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the fourth and fifth causes of action, which arose under state law.

The court did not reach the defendants’ additional arguments about punitive damages, the statute of limitations, or striking portions of the amended complaint. It denied the motion to strike as moot.

Disposition

Judge Susan Van Keulen granted the motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The federal claims—the first, second, and third causes of action—were dismissed without leave to amend. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the fourth and fifth state-law claims. The defendants’ motion to strike was denied as moot.