Royce vs Western Nevada College, et al

Filing 17

ORDER GRANTING 6 Motion to Dismiss. P's # 1 Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety. FURTHER ORDERED that P Karen Royce's amended complaint is due by 2/27/2013. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 1/28/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9

KAREN ROYCE,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

WESTERN NEVADA COLLEGE; et al.,

13

Defendants.

3:12-cv-0350-LRH-VPC
ORDER

14
15

Before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss. Doc. #6. Plaintiff Karen Royce (“Royce”)

16

filed an opposition and request to amend complaint (Doc. #14) to which defendants’ replied (Doc.

17

#15).

18

I.

19

Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff Royce was enrolled as a student in a Human Sexuality class at Wester Nevada

20

College the Fall 2011 semester. While attending the class, Royce alleges that she was subject to a

21

hostile education environment in violation of Title 9 because she was forced to discuss personal

22

sexual information. Royce eventually voluntarily dropped from the class without credit.

23

Subsequently, Royce filed a complaint against defendants alleging various violations of

24

Title 9 and Section 1983 claims. Doc. #1. Thereafter, defendants filed the present motion to

25

dismiss. Doc. #6.

26

///

1

II.

2

Discussion
In their motion, defendants contend that plaintiff Royce has failed to allege a single cause of

3

action upon which relief can be granted because she has either (1) failed to identify the underlying

4

constitutional violations, or (2) failed to allege a key element of the identified claims. See Doc. #6.

5

The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and agrees with

6

defendants that the complaint fails to sufficiently allege a single cause of action upon which relief

7

can be granted. In her complaint, Royce merely sets out the base elements of her claims but fails to

8

allege how defendants acted, or how defendants’ actions violated the elements of the claims she

9

puts forth. In particular, Royce fails to sufficiently allege (1) how defendants engaged in either age

10

or gender discrimination, (2) how the activities and discussions in the Human Sexuality class were

11

a violation of Title 9, or (3) clearly identify the underlying constitutional rights that form the basis

12

of her Section 1983 claims. Therefore, the court shall grant defendants’ motion to dismiss.

13

However, because Royce has requested leave to amend her complaint, and the court finds that

14

defendants would not be prejudiced by amendment, the court shall grant her leave to file an

15

amended complaint that addresses the pleading defects identified in this order and defendants’

16

motion.

17
18
19
20
21
22

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. #6) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. #1) is DISMISSED in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Karen Royce shall have thirty (30) days from
entry of this order to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order.
DATED this 28th day of January, 2013.

23
24
25
26

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2