Zochlinski v. Regents of the University of California, et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/3/2013 ORDERING that the Clerk of Court is directed to reopen this action. No later than 6/26/2013, plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed on mootness grounds. No later than 7/10/2013, defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's response to the order to show cause. The matter will thereafter stand submitted. Case reopened. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HOWARD ZOCHLINSKI,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.

No. 2:08-cv-0024 TLN CKD PS

ORDER

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
BOARD OF REGENTS, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

This action was stayed on March 26, 2008 and defendants were directed to advise the

19

court when the state mandamus proceedings were completed. The court has now been advised

20

that there has been final resolution of the state mandamus proceedings.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In determining that this action should be stayed, the court noted the following:
Abstention . . . appears appropriate under the Pullman abstention
doctrine. Invoking Pullman abstention is appropriate when the
federal complaint requires resolution of a sensitive question of
federal constitutional law, the constitutional question could be
mooted or narrowed by a definitive ruling on state law issues, and
the possibly determinative state law issue is unclear. The San
Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, 145 F.3d 1095,
1104 (9th Cir. 1998). Pullman abstention promotes a “harmonious
federal system by avoiding a collision between the federal courts
and state . . . legislatures.” Id. at 1105, citing Waldron v. McAtee,
723 F.2d 1348, 1351 (7th Cir. 1983). Admission, continued
enrollment in a state supported school, conferral of advanced
degrees, and the power of the University’s Academic Senate is a
1

1

sensitive area of social policy which meets the first requirement of
Pullman. Cf. San Remo, 145 F.3d at 1105 (constitutional questions
arising out of land use planning meet first Pullman requirement).
At the heart of plaintiff’s claims here is plaintiff’s fundamental
assertion that he has a vested property interest in enrollment in the
graduate program and conferment of a Ph.D. Whether that right has
been conferred by the State is an unclear matter of state law that
will be decided in the state court mandamus action. Absent that
right, plaintiff’s claims here are mooted. The court will therefore
abstain under Pullman.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

ECF No. 28 at 4:22-5:11.
In light of the Superior Court’s judgment in favor of the Regents of the University of
California in the state mandamus action, it appears that plaintiff’s claims in this action are moot.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1. The Clerk of Court is directed to reopen this action.

12

2. No later than June 26, 2013, plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be

13
14
15
16
17

dismissed on mootness grounds.
3. No later than July 10, 2013, defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s response to the
order to show cause.
4. The matter will thereafter stand submitted.
Dated: June 3, 2013

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20

4 zochlinski.osc

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2