La Prensa and San Ysidro School District
Why did April Boling
give an award to CVESD
The Media and
2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 6377,*;125 Fed. Appx. 193
BERNARD N. ARMAS, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF, OFFICE OF EDUCATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees, and PATRICK MATARAZZO, Defendant.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
125 Fed. Appx. 193; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 6377
April 4, 2005**, Submitted**The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
April 11, 2005, Filed
[*1] RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO
UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. D.C. No.
CV-04-00273-JTM. Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding.
COUNSEL: For BERNARD N. ARMAS, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, San Diego, CA.
For SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF, OFFICE OF EDUCATION, SAN YSIDRO SCHOOL DISTRICT,
SHINOFF & HOLTZ, STUTZ, GALLAGHER, ARTIANO, CHRIS QUINN, ROSA CASTRO;
PAMELA MCDANIEL; JANIE PONTERPRIAO; MANUEL PAUL; CHRISTINA CUELLAR; WILLIAM
B N'NEILL, Defendant - Appellees: Jack M. Sleeth, Jr., Esq., STUTZ, GALLAGHER, ARTIANO,
SHINOFF & HOLTZ, San Diego, CA.
For EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee: Attorney
General, AGCA - OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL (SAN DIEGO), San
For CALIFORNIA COMMISSION OF TEACHERS CRED., Defendant - Appellee: Attorney
General, Karen M. Walter, Esq., AGCA - OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
(SAN DIEGO), San Diego, CA.
For RALPH MATARAZZO, Defendant - Appellee: Horacio Barraza, Esq., Terry Singleton, Esq.
[*2] , SINGLETON AND ASSOCIATES, San Diego, CA.
For LUCINDA MATARAZZO, MARY ANNE SAPONARA; JOSE TORRES; SANDRA LOPEZ;
ERNESTINE JONES; CARMEN VALENZUELA; MARIA TEJEDA; DEBBIE IAPALA; TERRY
ALBRITTON; DIANE SANDECKI; SAM SARDO; BETTY CUEN; SYLVIA ARMENTA ROBLEDO;
JOHN DUVANICH; ADRIANA GARCIA; JOSE VALDIVIA; WILLIAM J WHEELER, Defendant -
Appellees: No appearance.
For LA PRENSA NEWSPAPER, Defendant - Appellee: Daniel Ernest Marshall, Esq., LAW
OFFICES OF DANIEL E MARSHALL, San Diego, CA.
For PATRICK MATARAZZO, Defendant: Jack M. Sleeth, Jr., Esq., STUTZ, GALLAGHER,
ARTIANO, SHINOFF & HOLTZ, San Diego, CA.
For ANITA HARVEY, CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant - Appellees: Joseph
R. Colton, Esq., CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Santa Fe Springs, CA.
JUDGES: Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of
this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bernard N. [*3] Armas, II appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his civil rights
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Sommatino v. United States, 255 F.3d 704, 707
(9th Cir. 2001) (subject matter jurisdiction), Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737
(9th Cir. 2001) (failure to state a claim). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Armas' Title VII claims against the California Commission
on Teaching Credentials ("CCTC") because he failed to file his complaint within 90 days of
receipt of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC") right-to-sue letter. See
Scholar v. Pac. Bell, 963 F.2d 264, 266-67 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citation omitted).
The district court properly dismissed Armas' Title VII claims against the remaining defendants
because he only named CCTC in his charge filed with the EEOC. See EEOC v. Farmer Bros.
Co., 31 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir. 1994) (plaintiffs must exhaust administrative remedies before
seeking federal adjudication of claims). [*4]
The district court properly concluded that defendants San Ysidro School District, its officials,
and CCTC were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. See Cal. Educ. Code §
44210 (establishing the CCTC); Cole v. Oroville Union High Sch., 228 F.3d 1092, 1100 n.4
(9th Cir. 2000) (California school districts and their officials entitled to Eleventh Amendment
immunity); Quillin v. Oregon, 127 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 1997).
The district court properly dismissed Armas' conspiracy claim for failure to state a claim
cognizable under section 1983 because his conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a
claim for relief. See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) (we
need not "accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, deductions of fact, or
unreasonable inferences."); Woodrum v. Woodward County, 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir.
1989) (stating that conclusory allegations of a conspiracy do not support a section 1983 claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the state law claims. [*5] See San Pedro Hotel Co., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d
470, 478 (9th Cir. 1998).
Armas' remaining contentions lack merit.
Appellee La Prensa Munoz's motion for extension of time to file an opposition brief is denied.
PERB: Bernard Armas
Ad-341 Bernard N. Armas,
San Ysidro Education
Late filing where party
calculated appeal period
based on work days not
Board did not find good
cause to excuse late-filing
where warning letter
clearly informed charging
party that appeal period is
calculated using calendar
days, not work days.
|San Diego Education Report
|San Diego Education Report