BRENT POLLITT V. CASA GRANDE UNION HIGH SCHOOL, No. 15-16370 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRENT K. POLLITT, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-16370 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00383-RM MEMORANDUM* CASA GRANDE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 82; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Rosemary Marquez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Brent K. Pollitt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims relating to his termination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s * 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). dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Pollitt’s claim under Arizona’s blacklisting statute because Pollitt failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 23-1361 (elements of blacklisting); Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42 (to avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face). The district court also properly dismissed Pollitt’s conspiracy to blacklist claim, alleged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because “a claim for violation of state law is not cognizable under § 1983.” Cornejo v. County of San Diego, 504 F.3d 853, 855 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court properly dismissed Pollitt’s remaining claims arising from his termination because the state administrative proceedings had preclusive effect. See Olson v. Morris, 188 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1999) (“In Arizona, the failure to seek judicial review of an administrative order precludes collateral attack of the order in a separate complaint.”). 2 15-16370 We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 3 15-16370

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.