Cornelius Ogunsalu v. Sweetwater Union Hsd ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CORNELIUS OLUSEYI OGUNSALU, No. 18-55359
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01535-BAS-
MDD
v.
SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL MEMORANDUM*
DISTRICT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2018**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Cornelius Oluseyi Ogunsalu appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and
conspiracy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Org., 828 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Ogunsalu failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that defendant Jennifer Carbuccia or any other
person conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights or retaliated against
him for exercising his rights. See Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1868 (2017)
(“To state a claim under § 1985(3), a plaintiff must first show that the defendants
conspired—that is, reached an agreement—with one another”); Clairmont v. Sound
Mental Health, 632 F.3d 1091, 1103 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that plaintiff must
allege that “protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in [an] adverse
employment action”); Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 929 (9th
Cir. 2004) (explaining that “the plaintiff must state specific facts to support the
existence of the claimed conspiracy” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)); see also Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012)
(explaining that although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a pro se
plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for
relief).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ogunsalu another
opportunity to amend because it was “absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the
complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Akhtar, 698 F.3d at 1212. Contrary
to Ogunsalu’s contentions, the district court liberally construed Ogunsalu’s pro se
2 18-55359
complaint and properly explained the shortcomings therein before dismissing his
action.
Ogunsalu’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-55359