Ashley Anne Hobbins v. Desert Community College District, Sarah Fry, Dorothy Seitz, Carlos Maldonado, and Monica Camargo

DISCUSSION

A. PLAINTIFF’S SECTION 1983 CLAIM APPEARS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL

As an initial matter, Defendants’ Motion does not address Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim, and neither party has addressed whether such claim is actionable. Section 1983 “allows individuals to enforce rights contained in the United States Constitution and defined by federal law.” Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1155 (9th Cir. 2002). “An alleged violation of federal law may not be vindicated under § 1983, however, where . . . Congress has foreclosed citizen enforcement in the enactment itself, either explicitly, or implicitly by imbuing it with its own comprehensive remedial scheme.” Id. (quoting Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F.3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995)).

1 The Court notes Defendants belatedly filed the Motion over a year after filing their Answer and over three months after the motion hearing cut-off set by the Court’s Civil Trial Scheduling Order. See dkt. 22. Accordingly, the Court construes the Motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) and a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil…