Gremmels v. California Institute of Integrated Studies

Background

Chris Gremmels filed the complaint on August 9, 2021. The court granted his request to proceed without paying filing fees in advance and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu dismissed the complaint after screening for failure to state a claim and identified deficiencies that an amended pleading would need to address.

Gremmels did not file an amended complaint or other papers responding to the screening order. Judge Ryu later recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. Gremmels did not object to that recommendation. He had, however, appealed the clerk’s termination of a motion seeking to change the docket designation from alternative dispute resolution to litigation. The Ninth Circuit dismissed that appeal because the challenged order was not final or appealable.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the complaint did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because it did not provide enough information to show a plausible legal claim. The court rejected allegations based on an indefinite right to education, explaining that education is not expressly protected as a general right by the Federal Constitution. It also said that the complaint did not allege facts showing that Gremmels’s decision to attend graduate school at the California Institute of Integrated Studies had been interfered with or was not his own decision.

The court also addressed possible claims for fraudulent interference with a contract and intentional interference with contractual relations. It stated that the complaint did not plausibly allege the required facts for either claim. In addition, fraud claims must describe the circumstances of the alleged fraud with particularity, and the court found that the complaint fell far short of that requirement.

Disposition

Judge Hamilton found the report and recommendation correct and well reasoned but chose to dismiss on the failure-to-state-a-claim ground instead of the alternative failure-to-prosecute ground. The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The court allowed Gremmels to file an amended complaint by March 10, 2022. The amended complaint must identify the legal violations, the facts supporting the claims, and the grounds for federal jurisdiction. No additional parties may be added without the court’s permission. The court warned that if Gremmels did not timely file an amended complaint or otherwise comply with the order, the complaint would be dismissed with prejudice. The court also terminated the related motion for an extension of the appeal deadline.