Amey v. State of California et al
Filing
24
ORDER by Judge Breyer granting 8 Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend. (crblc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2018)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
NICOLE HODGE AMEY,
Plaintiff,
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
Case No. 18-cv-02406-CRB
Nicole Amey, an attorney, sues under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, complaining
14
of (1) the California Office of Administrative Hearings’ (“OAH”) denial of Amey’s
15
request for a continuance on behalf of her client, and (2) the OAH’s decision to sanction
16
Amey in a different case. Compl. (dkt. 1) at 6–7. Amey’s appeal of the sanctions order is
17
barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163 (9th
18
Cir. 2003) (“[W]hen the plaintiff in federal district court complains of a legal wrong
19
allegedly committed by the state court, and seeks relief from the judgment of that court,”
20
the action is a forbidden de facto appeal.). Meanwhile, Amey’s claim for an injunction
21
under the Rehabilitation Act fails because (1) Amey alleges no wrongdoing by the
22
California Department of Education (CDE and OAH are separate agencies, M.M. v.
23
Lafayette Sch. Dist., 681 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2012)), and (2) Amey points to no
24
“continuing, present adverse effects” resulting from the OAH’s one-time denial of her
25
request for a continuance, see City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983).
26
Accordingly, the complaint is DENIED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Amey shall file
27
an amended complaint on or before Aug. 17, 2018. The hearing scheduled for Aug. 10 is
28
VACATED.
1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
Dated: July 27, 2018
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?