eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-06

Lloyd Collins v. Compton Unified School Dist. ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                               FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 22 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LLOYD JOSEPH COLLINS;                            No.    19-55210
REPOSSESSION EMPIRE, INC., DBA
Legion,                                          D.C. No.
2:18-cv-07922-VAP-SK
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.                                              MEMORANDUM*
COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, a governmental entity;
MURIELLO, Officer; MCFADDEN, Lt.;
DOES, 1-10,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 3, 2020**
Pasadena, California
*
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).
Before: W. FLETCHER and LEE, Circuit Judges, and AMON,*** District Judge.
Plaintiffs Lloyd Collins and Repossession Empire, Inc. (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s orders, which dismissed their complaint on
the ground that defendants Compton Unified School District and individual school
police officers were immune from suit. We review dismissal on the basis of
immunity de novo, and affirm. See Hernandez v. City of San Jose,
    897 F.3d 1125
    ,
1131 (9th Cir. 2018); Del Campo v. Kennedy,
    517 F.3d 1070
    , 1075 (9th Cir. 2008).
Collins, a certified repossessor and employee for Repossession Empire, Inc.,
entered school grounds within the Compton Unified School District to repossess a
vehicle. Officers Muriello and McFadden, school district police officers, thwarted
the repossession and did not permit Collins to leave until he returned the vehicle to
its original place. Plaintiffs sued the school district and individual officers,
claiming that the officers had violated Collins’ Fourth Amendment rights by
detaining and arresting him.
1. The district court did not err in dismissing the claims against Compton
Unified School District on the ground that it was immune from suit under the
Eleventh Amendment. A California school district is an arm or agent of the state
***
The Honorable Carol Bagley Amon, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
2
entitled to sovereign immunity. See Belanger v. Madera Unified Sch. Dist.,
    963 F.2d 248
    , 251–54 (9th Cir. 1992); Stoner v. Santa Clara Cty. Office of Educ.,
    502 F.3d 1116
    , 1123 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiffs fail to distinguish this case from that
longstanding precedent.
2. The district court did not err in dismissing the claims against the
individual school officers based on qualified immunity. Collins violated California
law by coming onto school grounds during school hours without registering with
the school. See
    Cal. Penal Code § 627.2
    . School police officers may “detain an
outsider for the limited purpose of determining the fundamental factors justifying
an outsider’s presence on a school campus, such as who he is, why he is on
campus, and whether he has registered.” In re Joseph F.,
    102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 641
    ,
649 (Ct. App. 2000), as modified Jan. 12, 2001, rev. denied Apr. 11, 2001. Section
627.2 does not make exceptions for outsiders conducting otherwise lawful
activities. See
    id.
     at 647–48. Since Collins was on school grounds in violation of
§ 627.2, the defendant officers acted reasonably in detaining him and requiring him
to leave without taking the repossessed vehicle. See Reichle v. Howards,
    566 U.S. 658
    , 664 (2012); Grossman v. City of Portland,
    33 F.3d 1200
    , 1209 (9th Cir. 1994)
(“[A]n officer who acts in reliance on a duly-enacted statute or ordinance is
ordinarily entitled to qualified immunity.”).
3
Although Plaintiffs also claim that the officers arrested Collins, they fail to
allege facts supporting such a finding. See Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles,
    308 F.3d 987
    , 991 (9th Cir. 2002).
3. Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by denying them leave to
amend. “A district court does not err in denying leave to amend where the
amendment would be futile, or where the amended complaint would be subject to
dismissal.” Saul v. United States,
    928 F.2d 829
    , 843 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations
omitted). Because defendants are immune from suit as a matter of law, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend. See
    id.
    AFFIRMED.
4