Craig Ross v. P. White, 19-55900

Background

Plaintiffs Craig Ross and Natalie Operstein, proceeding pro se, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related theories over employment actions at California State University, Fullerton.
The district court granted summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, concluding plaintiffs lacked a protected property interest in a tenured position under state law and regulations.
The court dismissed claims against defendants Becerra, Frater, and Graboyes under the Noerr–Pennington doctrine for failing to show litigation conduct was objectively baseless.
Claims against defendants Viramontes and Ramos were dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim; § 1985 and § 1986 conspiracy claims were dismissed for lack of factual specificity.
The district court denied leave to amend (futility), denied plaintiffs’ request to extend discovery deadlines (no good cause), denied recusal, and awarded costs to defendants. Plaintiffs appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs had a protected property interest in a tenured position	Plaintiffs claimed a legitimate entitlement to tenure at CSU Fullerton	Defendants argued no legitimate entitlement existed under California law/regulations	No property interest; summary judgment for defendants (Roth standard)
Entitlement to injunctive relief based on due process injury	Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief tied to alleged property interest	Defendants argued plaintiffs lacked concrete, particularized injury	Injunctive relief denied for lack of concrete injury (Spokeo)
Dismissal of claims against Becerra, Frater, Graboyes under Noerr–Pennington	Plaintiffs alleged defendants’ litigation conduct was actionable	Defendants argued their conduct was protected petitioning and not objectively baseless	Claims dismissed: plaintiffs failed to show conduct was objectively baseless (Noerr–Pennington applies)
Dismissal of claims against Viramontes and Ramos for failure to state a claim	Plaintiffs contended specific actionable conduct by these defendants	Defendants argued pleadings lack factual detail to plausibly state claims	Claims dismissed: pleadings not plausible even under liberal pro se standard (Hebbe)
§ 1985 and § 1986 conspiracy claims	Plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy to deprive rights	Defendants argued allegations lacked factual specificity to establish a conspiracy	Claims dismissed: mere conspiracy allegations insufficient (Karim‑Panahi)
Denial of leave to amend	Plaintiffs sought leave to amend pleadings	Defendants opposed; court found prior amendments would not cure defects	Denial affirmed: amendment would be futile (Cervantes)
Denial to extend discovery/scheduling order	Plaintiffs sought more time to complete discovery	Defendants opposed; court found no good cause to modify schedule	Denial affirmed: no good cause shown (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b))
Motion to recuse Judge Wright	Plaintiffs argued bias requiring recusal	Defendants contended no reasonable person would question judge's impartiality	Denial affirmed: recusal standards not met (Hernandez)
Award of costs to defendants	Plaintiffs opposed costs award	Defendants requested costs as prevailing parties	Costs award affirmed: presumption in favor of prevailing party (Rule 54(d)(1))

Key Cases Cited

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard for evaluating qualified immunity and summary judgment in § 1983 cases)
Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (protected property interest requires legitimate claim of entitlement)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (injury‑in‑fact must be concrete and particularized)
Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2006) (describing Noerr–Pennington protection for petitioning conduct)
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings construed liberally but must state plausible claims)
Karim‑Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621 (9th Cir. 1988) (mere conspiracy allegations without specificity insufficient for § 1985)
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal without leave to amend appropriate when amendment would be futile)
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (modifying scheduling order requires good cause)
United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450 (9th Cir. 1997) (standards governing recusal under §§ 144 and 455)
Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2016) (presumption in favor of awarding costs to prevailing parties)