Jose Rafael Moreno Hernandez v. City College of San Francisco, et al.

Background

Jose Rafael Moreno Hernandez filed the case without a lawyer to challenge his suspension from City College of San Francisco (CCSF). He alleged that CCSF employees Amy Coffey and Maria Salazar-Colon conducted a biased disciplinary hearing, refused to consider his exculpatory evidence, and unlawfully suspended him. According to documents attached to the complaint, CCSF placed him on an interim suspension on April 7, 2026, and later suspended him from April 15 through December 23, 2026, for violating the CCSF Code of Student Conduct.

The complaint expressly asserted a due-process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although it did not list a separate disability claim, the court construed the allegations as also asserting a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Rule 8 and Noerr-Pennington

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the complaint was too confusing or rambling to satisfy Rule 8. The court and the defendants could identify the two claims, and Moreno Hernandez’s opposition confirmed that those were the claims he intended to bring.

The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine barred all claims. That doctrine protects certain efforts to petition the government, but the defendants had not identified petitioning activity for which Moreno Hernandez sought to hold them liable.

Section 1983 Due-Process Claim

Moreno Hernandez did not oppose dismissal of his § 1983 due-process claim against CCSF or against Coffey and Salazar-Colon in their official capacities. The court dismissed the claim as to those defendants without leave to amend.

The court separately considered the claim against Coffey and Salazar-Colon in their individual capacities. It recognized that government officials may be sued for damages in their individual capacities under § 1983, but held that the officials were protected by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

The court concluded that Moreno Hernandez had identified no authority clearly establishing that the alleged conduct violated his due-process rights. It also concluded that the law remained unsettled on whether a higher-education student has a protected property interest in continued enrollment. The court therefore dismissed the § 1983 damages claim against Coffey and Salazar-Colon on qualified-immunity grounds, without leave to amend.

ADA Title II Claim

The court held that Moreno Hernandez had not stated a claim under Title II of the ADA. The complaint referred to his use of on-campus mental-health services but did not allege that the defendants acted because he used those services. It also did not allege a physical or mental impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities.

The court dismissed the ADA claim with leave to amend. However, any amended ADA claim could not be brought against Coffey or Salazar-Colon in their individual capacities, and Moreno Hernandez could not seek punitive damages under Title II.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It dismissed the § 1983 due-process claim without leave to amend. It dismissed the ADA claim with leave to amend, subject to the limits concerning individual-capacity claims against Coffey and Salazar-Colon and punitive damages.

Moreno Hernandez may file an amended complaint within 28 days of the order, solely to correct the stated deficiencies. He may not add new defendants or claims for relief. If he does not timely file an amended complaint, the court stated that the case will be dismissed with prejudice.