Hills
Hills v. California Department of Health & Human Services
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Roland Hills appeals the dismissal of his action against several members of the California Department of Rehabilitation. He alleges that the defendants violated his civil rights by denying his application for tuition reimbursement. The district court, citing our decision in Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145,1155-56 (9th Cir.2002), held that Hills could not bring suit under 42 U. S.C. § 1983 to vindicate his rights under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (prohibiting the denial of benefits to an individual based on his or her disability).
On appeal, Hills argues that the district court erred because his claims are not based on violations of the Rehabilitation Act. We agree in part.
We review de novo dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6). Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir.2001).
The district court properly dismissed counts 1-4 in Hills’s complaint because, though framed in terms of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, these claims are plainly based on the failure to provide Hills with the tuition reimbursement to which he asserts entitlement as an individual with a disability. Accordingly, the district court…