McKinney v. Oakland Unified School District
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CLEVELAND MCKINNEY, Case No. 20-cv-06792-JSC
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS
v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 9 OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 11 Defendants.
12 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part Plaintiff’s complaint. Having reviewed the parties’ written submissions, the Court concludes that oral argument is not necessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), vacates the December 3, 2020 hearing, and DENIES in part and GRANTS in part the motion. 1. Defendants’ Motion to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation claim against Sifuentes and Scott on grounds that Plaintiff sued them in their official capacity and therefore the claim is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity is DENIED. Although the complaint does not specify, it is presumed that they are sued in their personal capacity. See Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 1999) (“We also have presumed that officials necessarily are sued in their personal capacities…