Unpublished Disposition, 844 F.2d 792 (9th Cir. 1988)Annotate this Case
James HAMILTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants,andPaola Timiras and Agnes Rovnanex, Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 24, 1988.* Decided March 30, 1988.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Robert H. Schnacke, District Judge, Presiding.
Before WALLACE, SNEED and POOLE, Circuit Judges.
Hamilton appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of Timiras and Rovnanek. We affirm.
Hamilton brought an action against the Regents of the University of California, Sanford S. Elberg, Dean of the Graduate Division, Timiras and Rovnanek alleging various impairments in his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985(3). The district court dismissed the entire action. On appeal this court affirmed the district court's order except with respect to Hamilton's conspiracy claim against Timiras and Rovnanek under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). We remanded that claim to the district court. After numerous requests that Hamilton provide evidence of the conspiracy had been met with no meaningful response, the district court granted the summary judgment motion of Timiras and Rovnanek. The district court also held that Hamilton's claim should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., for repeated failure to comply with the district court's orders. There is some question whether Hamilton appealed from the Rule 41(b) dismissal; the issue, however, is unimportant because we affirm the district court's summary judgment in favor of Timiras and Rovnanek.
Hamilton entered the Medical Option Program in the Health Sciences Program of the Graduate Division of the University of California at Berkeley in 1973. He was dropped from the program in 1975 for failure to maintain minimal academic requirements. Timiras and Rovnanek were program director and Hamilton's advisor, respectively. The gist of Hamilton's complaint appears to be that these two conspired to discriminate against him on account of his race by denying him access to courses to be taken on a pass/no pass basis. The inference is that with such access he would have maintained a satisfactory academic record. He also points out that, although the policy of the Graduate Division is to make the pass/no pass option available only to students having a grade point average greater than 3.00, a number of students with less than 3.00 did take courses pass/no pass. Rovnanek acknowledges that she could waive the 3.00 grade point average for students close to that average.
Hamilton, however, presented no evidence of a conspiracy to prevent him from successfully completing his course of study. His numerous documents, including the transcripts of other students, do not indicate a conspiracy to deprive him of his civil rights. The mere allegation of conspiracy is not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. Hewitt v. Grabicki, 794 F.2d 1373, 1382 (9th Cir. 1986). No reasonable jury could find the conspiracy Hamilton alleges. Therefore, summary judgment is proper. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986).