Doss v. Hayward Unified School District
- Susan Illston
- 3:22-cv-00933
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Doss v. Hayward Unified School District, Judge Illston dismissed the federal claims without leave to amend and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
The plaintiff’s federal claims were dismissed without leave to amend, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state-law claims. The defendants obtained dismissal of the second amended complaint.
What happened
In Doss v. Hayward Unified School District, the plaintiff sued over the revocation of J.D.’s admission to a private school and alleged violations of constitutional rights and education-record privacy rules. The plaintiff also brought negligence and contract-interference claims under state law.
The court ruled that the constitutional claims failed for the reasons given in its earlier order, including that the plaintiff had not shown a protected property or privacy interest and had not alleged action under state authority. The court also ruled that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act did not support a claim under the civil-rights statute or a direct private lawsuit.
Judge Susan Illston granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. She dismissed the federal claims without leave to amend and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
The detailed version
- Doss v. Hayward Unified School District · No. 3:22-cv-00933
- Susan Illston
- Nov. 17, 2022
Background
The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint after the court’s September 12, 2022 order dismissed earlier claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Those claims alleged that defendants violated J.D.’s due-process rights. The earlier order held, among other things, that there is no property interest in attending a private school, that the plaintiff had not alleged that revoking J.D.’s admission occurred under color of state law, and that the plaintiff had not satisfied the “stigma plus” test for a privacy claim. The court had allowed the plaintiff to amend.
The second amended complaint repeated the earlier allegations and added an allegation that defendants violated the nondisclosure provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The plaintiff relied on FERPA as an alternative basis for the § 1983 claims and also asserted a direct FERPA claim. The complaint additionally asserted state-law claims for negligence and tortious interference with contract.
Federal Claims
The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to state any federal claim. It dismissed the first and second § 1983 causes of action for the reasons stated in the earlier order. The court also held that a FERPA violation could not serve as the basis for a § 1983 claim because FERPA’s nondisclosure provisions do not create rights enforceable under § 1983.
The court separately dismissed the direct FERPA cause of action because FERPA’s nondisclosure provisions contain no rights-creating language and therefore do not provide a private right of action—that is, a right for a private person to sue directly under the statute.
State Claims and Disposition
Because the federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case as federal claims.
Judge Susan Illston granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The federal claims were dismissed without leave to amend, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.